Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM COUNSELLORS OF STATE

IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported the Answer of the Counsellors of State to the Address, as follows:

We Counsellors of State, to whom have been delegated certain Royal Functions as specified in Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 15th June, 1959, have received your Address to Her Majesty praying that the Inter-governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order, 1959, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.

On Her Majesty's behalf we will comply with your request.

Elizabeth R.

Margaret.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MILFORD HAVEN (TIDAL BARRAGE) BILL [Lords]

Mr. Donnelly: I beg to move,
That the Milford Haven (Tidal Barrage) Bill [Lords] be recommitted to the former Committee and that it be an Instruction to the Committee on the re-committed Bill that they have power to reconsider their decision on the Preamble of the Bill as reported by them to the House.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Speaker: Objection taken. What day?

Mr. Donnelly: Tomorrow.

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

Avebury Stone Circle

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Works what action he will take to implement the recommendation in the recent Annual Report of the Ancient Monuments Board that there should be excavation of the North Set ting in Avebury Stone Circle.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Harmar Nicholls): I have every expectation that a firm arrangement will be reached with the skilled archaeologists concerned, so that the work on the North Setting will be carried out next year.

Mr. Noel-Baker: In welcoming that reply, may I ask whether the Parliamentary Secretary now feels in a position to tell us who will be the archaeologist in charge of this important project?

Mr. Nicholls: Yes, Sir. There was some doubt whether we could keep the promise made by my right hon. Friend because of the archaeologist's commitments, but I can now confirm that the work will start next year.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I should like to express my regret and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends at the accident which the Minister of Works has sustained. Can the Parliamentary Secretary say what will be the cost of these proposals?

Mr. Nicholls: I should like notice of that supplementary question. I am pleased to acknowledge the kind comments made by the hon. Gentleman, which I will pass on to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Works when he will publish a com prehensive report on earlier work of excavation at Avebury, as recommended by the Ancient Monuments Board in its last Report.

Mr. H. Nicholls: The Ancient Monuments Board did not recommend that my Department should publish a report on earlier work at Avebury. The material found during the pre-war excavations belongs to the archaeologist's widow and


I understand that it is being prepared for publication.

Mr. Noel-Baker: In expressing my astonishment that the Parliamentary Secretary and I evidently interpret the Report of the Ancient Monuments Board differently, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman nevertheless appreciates the need for having a consolidated publication detailing all the work so far undertaken at Avebury, because this is indispensable to future excavations?

Mr. Nicholls: I have a lot of sympathy with the hon. Member. It is a matter of play on words. The Report did not recommend as the hon. Member states in his Question. The words were:
For the future, we have suggested that when a comprehensive report on earlier work at Avebury is published, there may be advantage in continuing the work of re-erecting stones and in exposing further parts of the monument for presentation to the public.
It is not a recommendation. I understand, however, that Mrs. Keiller has commissioned Dr. Isabel Smith to commence the work of preparing the material for publication.

Mr. Hastings: In the report, will the Minister include ancient monuments surrounding Avebury, which presumably have a good deal to do with the original structure?

Mr. Nicholls: Yes. The report will be based upon the finds made by Mr. Alexander Keiller in that area. Therefore, it may not include anything that was outside his ownership at the time.

Excavations (Reports)

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Minister of Works how many reports on excavations arranged by his Department are now in course of production; and what steps he is taking to ensure the speedier publication of reports after the work of excavation has been completed.

Mr. H. Nicholls: At 31st March, 1959, the reports of 198 completed excavations were still outstanding. Of these, 49 were in the Press or placed with journals for publication, 30 were nearly ready for publication, 39 were being written, and 80 were in various early stages of preparation.
On the second part of the Question, since a special fee was recently introduced for the production of reports, they

are now being completed more speedily. In addition the improvements to the Ancient Monuments Laboratory mentioned by my right hon. Friend on 14th July will expedite the treatment of finds.

Mr. Fletcher: I am obliged for that Answer, but may I ask the hon. Member to bear in mind, in the interests of scholarship, that if there are 198 reports still outstanding it is really of paramount importance that steps should be taken to expedite them and to abbreviate as far as possible the time taken to make them available to the public?

Mr. Nicholls: We accept the hon. Gentleman's views on that.

Roman Wall, Cripplegate

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Minister of Works what arrangements he is making with the City Corporation to ensure the preservation of a length of the Roman Wall of London near Cripplegate, abutting on the proposed new Route 11.

Mr. H. Nicholls: I understand that the position remains as stated in my right hon. Friend's letter of 8th August, 1958, to the hon. Member. The City Corporation intends to open up the wall and its bastions between Cripplegate and Falcon Square and to preserve them as part of an open space.

Mr. Fletcher: Can the hon. Gentleman now tell us when this will be done?

Mr. Nicholls: It is really a matter for the City Corporation. We shall make quite certain that the archaeological part of it is taken fully into account, but the decision is for the City Corporation.

Deep Shelters, London

Mr. Gibson: asked the Minister of Works what further progress has been made in dealing with deep shelters in London; and when this work will be completed.

Mr. H. Nicholls: The improvements have been completed at four more shelters in the last eight months, namely at Belsize Park, Camden Town, Clapham Common and Clapham North. This leaves only the Studley Road entrance to the Stockwell shelter, where my right hon. Friend is awaiting the completion of the L.C.C. housing development. It


is hoped that this work will be completed by December, 1960.

Mr. Gibson: Is the Minister aware that nobody is satisfied with the treatment which he has given to these shelters, that they are still ugly eyesores, that there happen to be four of them in my constituency, and that they are an annoyance to everybody who sees them? Is it not time that the promises were kept which were made when the legislation was passed by this House giving the control of the shelters to the Minister of Works—promises that something would be done to remove as many of them as possible and to hide the rest by some form of decoration?

Mr. Nicholls: That is being attempted. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but as long as the policy remains that the shelters as a whole shall remain, all we can do is to minimise the look of them. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that all we can do is being done in this matter, and we intend to adhere to the statement made by the counsel when the legislation was going through.

Palace of Westminster (Portraits)

Mr. C. R. Hobson: asked the Minister of Works if he will make known to Members, by means of a nameplate, the identity of the person whose portrait now hangs in Room 15 of the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. H. Nicholls: Presuming the hon. Member is referring to Committee Room 15, he will note that the nameplate has now been attached. The subject is the seventh Earl of Shaftesbury.

Mr. Hobson: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that we are very grateful for that reply, because the absence of a nameplate for this picture of this venerable and honoured gentleman had been a continuous source of worry to Members of the Select Committee on Estimates, particularly the hon. Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson) who, I understand, is a Member of the Arts Committee? Will the hon. Gentleman now see that this picture of the Earl of Shaftesbury is put in a more prominent part of the Palace of Westminster, in view of the history of the eminent gentleman?

Mr. Nicholls: Yes, I will certainly pass on the suggestion the hon. Member has just made. It is true that my hon. Friend is most assiduous in carrying out his duties as Chairman of the Art Committee.

Sir G. Nicholson: The hon. Gentleman who asked this Question might have seen this nameplate for some months. I think he has not been assiduous in his attendance in Committees.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: asked the Minister of Works if he will remove the portrait of Sir Charles Barry, R.A., in the Members Tea Room or have it reframed.

Mr. H. Nicholls: The portrait was hung in this position with the approval of the Advisory Committee on Works of Art. The existing frame is the original one and is, therefore, historically correct.

Mr. Hobson: Is not the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this is a very ugly and heavy frame and not conducive to the friendship and bonhomie of the Tea Room, and could he see that it is now transferred to the Whips' Room—I do not care of which party?

Mr. Nicholls: This is a portrait of the architect of the Palace of Westminster after the Great Fire. I think it is to its credit that it has withstood having oranges, eggs and all sorts of things like that, in close proximity to it without any of them having been thrown at it as yet.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the hon. Gentleman taking no steps to deal with the problem of overcrowding of pictures in the Palace of Westminster? We can hardly move for pictures.

Sir G. Nicholson: Is my hon. Friend aware of two things, firstly that the Advisory Committee is very glad to receive suggestions from the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. C. R. Hobson), and secondly, that there is no intention in the mind of the Committee of restraining the licence which he normally enjoys in the Tea Room? This picture may need better lighting, but it is a beautiful picture and we thought, in view of the fact that the subject is the architect of the Palace of Westminster, that it should be in a place where Members frequently congregate.

Hon. Members: Resign.

Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend may note the fact that the picture has been lit on the advice of the Advisory Committee and that has taken away, I think, from the heaviness of the frame.

Big Ben Centenary Exhibition

Mr. M. Clark Hutchison: asked the Minister of Works what is to be the duration of the Big Ben centenary exhibition.

Mr. H. Nicholls: My right hon. Friend's present intention is that the exhibition should remain open until the end of September.

Mr. M. Clark Hutchison: It is a good exhibition. Has my hon. Friend considered sending it on tour, starting with Edinburgh? Thereafter, would he offer it to any Commonwealth country which would like to see it? When that has been done, will he see that it is not dispersed but finally housed in some suitable place?

Mr. Nicholls: I am glad my hon. Friend thinks it is a good exhibition. I hope that hon. Members will encourage their constituents and friends to take a look at it, for I think it is well worth looking at. The suggestion made by my hon. Friend will be borne in mind. At the minute we are considering the possibility of making it a permanent feature of the Clock Tower itself, when the present exhibition or any tour ends.

Hyde Park (Road Safety)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Works what precautions were taken in Hyde Park during the London-Paris air race to ensure that the 20-mile-per-hour speed limit was observed by contestants and the safety of the public protected.

Mr. H. Nicholls: Competitors in this race—like all other drivers who use the roads in Hyde Park—are bound by the regulations regarding speed limits and this was especially drawn to the attention of the organisers prior to the starting date. Naturally the police responsible for enforcing the regulations have taken fully into account the existence of the competition.

Mr. Davies: While not wanting to detract from the sporting initiative of the contestants in this stunt enterprisingly

organised by the Daily Mail, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to say why this control point was agreed to in view of the fact that there is the hub of a great deal of pedestrian traffic, and the parks are mainly for pedestrians? Can he state whether it is or is not the fact that prior to this Question being put on the Notice Paper no particular police precautions were taken and that it is only since it appeared that there has been an attempt to control the traffic? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Can he further state—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—what accidents have taken place?

Mr. Nicholls: To answer the last part of the supplementary question first, from the first the organisers of the event have warned each competitor before he sets off that a breach of the traffic regulations would entail disqualification. From the first, in many cases—not all, but in many cases—the police patrols have followed competitors until they have left the park. That is a fact. As to whether we should have allowed this starting point, we had a request for that, and the police had no objection. Personally, I should not have liked this City to have been any less forthcoming than Paris, or this point less important that the Arc de Triomphe.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: It is not a fact that one competitor was disqualified for exceeding the speed limit in the course of the race, which has given a great deal of pleasure to a large number of people?

Mr. Nicholls: It is true there was one disqualification. I cannot confirm at this stage that it was due to exceeding the speed limit.

Mr. Page: asked the Minister of Works what steps he proposes to take to save the lives of pedestrians crossing the carriageways in Hyde Park, having regard to the two deaths which have occurred there this month.

Mr. H. Nicholls: The only four such fatal accidents in Hyde Park over the last two and a half years have been on the East Carriage Road. This road will be absorbed into the Park Lane Improvement Scheme, preliminary work on which has already begun, and in which provision is made for pedestrian subways at a number of points.

Mr. Page: Yes, but does my hon. Friend appreciate that the immense increase in the volume of traffic in the park during recent months has altered the whole character of the park as a place of recreation for those on foot? Does he realise that pedestrians are imperilled through the absence of enforcement of the speed limit, and that this is made much worse by the disregard of the park regulations? Will he please look into this matter again?

Mr. Nicholls: Yes, we will certainly keep that in mind, but I think I ought to tell my hon. Friend that the latest statistics available show that the accident rate in the East Carriage Road, which is the one he has in mind, is only half the rate for Central London generally. I do not say that in any sense of complacency, but in view of the attention which has been drawn to this park, I think it is well to bear it in mind.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: To ensure that pedestrians, particularly children, use them, will the pedestrian subways have moving staircases, like those provided in some cities on the Continent?

Mr. Nicholls: The only information I have at the moment is that four subways will be provided, but if the right hon. Gentleman will put a Question to my right hon. Friend who is responsible for this work, he will perhaps give a detailed Answer.

Sir William Harcourt (Statue)

Sir G. Nicholson: asked the Minister of Works what advice he has received on a future site for the statue of Sir William Harcourt; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. H. Nicholls: The Advisory Committee on Works of Art in the House has recommended that the statue of Sir William Harcourt should be moved to a position inside the doorway of the Lower Waiting Hall, opposite the statue of John Bright. My right hon. Friend proposes to implement this recommendation.

Building Plant Exhibitions

Mr. Barter: asked the Minister of Works whether he now proposes to continue the series of building plant exhibit-

tions organised by his Department in various parts of the country.

Mr. H. Nicholls: These exhibitions have achieved their object of stimulating the use of mechanical plant, by showing the plant actually at work, and my right hon. Friend believes that industry itself should now be responsible for any further development of this idea. With this in mind, the Department does not contemplate organising any more of these exhibitions.

Mr. Barter: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on the success of these exhibitions and at the same time express the hope that he is satisfied that the industry is in a position to take over where he has left off?

Mr. Nicholls: Yes, Sir. We have every reason to believe that those concerned in industry will continue these exhibitions if time shows that they are really wanted.

Abbeydale Works, Sheffield

Mr. N. Nicolson: asked the Minister of Works what action he is taking to assist in the preservation of Abbey-dale Works, Sheffield, in view of their importance as an early industrial monument.

Mr. H. Nicholls: My right hon. Friend has offered Sheffield Corporation, the owners of the Abbeydale Works, a grant towards the cost of urgent repairs. provided the balance is found by the Corporation or from other sources.

Mr. Nicolson: Is not this welcome decision to save the Abbeydale Works, described by the Ancient Monuments Board as representing technological history of great national importance, a precedent for extending the ancient monuments Acts to cover relics of the early Industrial Revolution in the category of national ancient monuments?

Mr. Nicholls: Yes, Sir. It may well be a precedent, but at this stage I do not think that we want it taken as a precedent. The general policy relating to this has not been settled as yet, but in the meantime we are making interim decisions on matters such as this where we think they are warranted.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH

Diesel-Engined Vehicles (Fumes)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works as representing the Lord President of the Council, what reply he has given to the United Commercial Travellers' Association in regard to the resolution forwarded to him concerning the emission of fumes from motor vehicles powered with diesel engines.

Mr. H. Nicholls: As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health said in answer to a similar Question on 22nd June, a reply has been sent by the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation to the United Commercial Travellers' Association to the effect that the concentration of noxious exhaust gases in the atmosphere is unlikely to affect healt in any detrimental way. This reply went on to say that further research in this and other directions is still be carried out.

Mr. Davies: But does not the Parliamentary Secretary admit that the emission of these noxious fumes from vehicles is a considerable danger on the road, that it is nauseating and increasing, as evidenced by correspondence now appearing in The Times? If the law cannot be enforced, or if it is too complicated to be enforced at present, will the Parliamentary Secretary consult his colleagues with a view to amending the law?

Mr. Nicholls: That is not a question for me at this stage. I answer for my noble Friend on behalf of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, which has made it perfectly clear that if the engines are properly maintained, as they should be. these excess fumes which we find so objectionable need not be produced. I am afraid that enforcement is not within the authority of my noble Friend. As to the health aspect, the Medical Research Council has satisfied itself that the detrimental effects are not as extreme as is sometimes suggested.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Would the Parliamentary Secretary make recommendations about regulations that are required to ensure that vehicles are properly

maintained? Does he not agree that present great abuse of diesel machines is becoming a menace to health and a great inconvenience?

Mr. Nicholls: The regulations are clear. If it can be shown that vehicles are emitting fumes which are dangerous there are powers to deal with them, but that is a matter for those who enforce the regulations and not for by noble Friend's Department.

Mr. Nabarro: Is my hon. Friend aware that last week, in response to my three Parliamentary Questions on this topic, he could give the House no information at all about the catalyst or muffler to be brought from the United States to be tested here? Has the catalyst or muffler arrived, and when is it to be tested?

Mr. Nicholls: I gave my hon. Friend the very clear answer that we are obtaining particulars of it. Before we incur any unnecessary expense in bringing the actual device here, we want to see that it is a thing that should be examined. Once we are satisfied on that, it will be brought here.

Mr. Nabarro: A very bad answer.

Road Transport Industry

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, whether the Road Research Laboratory will prepare a report for publication on the road transport industry from the results of the sample survey conducted by the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation in April, 1958, together with comparisons with a similar survey conducted in 1952.

Mr. H. Nicholls: No, Sir. A Report based on the survey has already been published by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation.

Mr. Davies: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the Report is completely biassed and prejudiced? Does he not agree that it is not the purpose of a White Paper to put forward a party-political case? Does he not agree that the figures which have been produced require to be objectively analysed so that it can be shown exactly what are the advantages of different forms of


transport, particularly within the road transport industry? Does he not agree that it is not the purpose of a White Paper to draw attention to the fact that there is no waste or inefficiency in the issue of C licences, when the figures do not prove that?

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Member has a Question on the Order Paper to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Trans-part for tomorrow, but if I may say so with great respect, he gives the appearance to me that he is the one who is biassed in this matter. It would seem that he expects any report to show that C licences are wasteful and inefficient. The Report shows that that is not true. Is the hon. Gentleman awfully disappointed and therefore shows bias?

Mr. G. Wilson: Does my hon. Friend not agree that diesel fumes which are visible are much less dangerous than fumes from petrol-driven vehicles?

Road Vehicles (Overtaking)

Mr. Page: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, if he will arrange for the publication and distribution, in a simplified and readily understandable form, of the conclusion of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research resulting from the Department's investigation of overtaking by road vehicles.

Mr. H. Nicholls: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Page: Whilst thanking my hon. Friend for that helpful Answer, may I ask whether I am to understand that he proposes to make public the report of the Road Research Laboratory? Does he not think that general guidance on this subject would save a great number of accidents—guidance to the drivers of overtaking and approaching cars and of cars that are being overtaken?

Mr. Nicholls: Thought is being given to the best way of presenting it, but it will be done and I will see that a copy is sent to my hon. Friend.

Anti-skid Devices

Mr. Page: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement as

to the stage reached by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research in the investigation of anti-skid devices in respect of road surfaces and of vehicles; and what conclusions can now be drawn as to the reduction of accidents by the universal adoption of any particular devices of that nature.

Mr. H. Nicholls: Three lines of investigation show promising results:
(1) A device to control braking without the locking of wheels.
(2) The application of appropriate road surface dressings at accident "black spots".
(3) The possible use of high hysteresis rubber in tyres.
The application of any of these methods should help materially to reduce road accidents.

Mr. Page: Would my hon. Friend consider combining all the results in some readable document? They are at present scattered over the reports of the Road Research Laboratory. Taken individually, do they not show that a great contribution to road safety would be made if these devices were adopted?

Mr. Nicholls: They certainly do, and I will pass on my hon. Friend's comments to my noble Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

New Schools, Sutherland (Contractors)

Sir D. Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why a London building company has been appointed main contractors for four schools in Sutherland for which tenders have not yet been invited; and why official advice that this should be done was given by the Department of Education.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): As already explained to my hon. Friend, the Sutherland Education Authority on the advice of its officials decided to adopt for these schools a specialised form of construction which only the firm referred to can undertake. The Department did not recommend this form of construction in preference to others, but mentioned seven firms, including the London firm referred to, which in its experience were capable of providing the new schools by the dates required by the authority.

Sir D. Robertson: Is it not the case that builders in Sutherland have always been able to build schools for the children, even when the population was double what it is now? Why should four small schools, totalling about £500,000 in cost, warrant the bringing in of a London company as the main contractors?

Mr. Macpherson: I think that my hon. Friend should recognise that this is a matter for the local authority to decide in the light of its knowledge of local resources.

Mr. E. Fletcher: May we take it from what the Joint Under-Secretary has said that there is no bias in Scotland against English firms of contractors, any more than there is bias in England against Scottish contractors?

Mr. Macpherson: That is true. We try to do the best for education.

Domiciliary Confinements, Lanarkshire

Mrs. Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many domiciliary confinements were carried out in Lanarkshire in 1958 by mid wives alone; and in how many of these the mother had trilene, gas and air or other analgesic.

The Joint Under Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon Browne): Mid-wives alone were present at 2,284 domiciliary births. Thirty-two of the mothers had trilene analgesia, 1,648 had gas and air and 1,541—including some who also had gas and air—pethidine.

Mrs. Mann: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the figures for 1950, which in that year we considered deplorable, showed a total of 2,161 mothers having analgesia at the birth of their children? If we are to avoid overcrowding of hospital beds for confinements, should not the hon. Gentleman be trying to persuade his right hon. Friend to advocate more births at home, particularly where the homes are good, comfortable and safe, and so reserve the beds for the more urgent cases?

Mr. Browne: Yes, Sir, I think I can say that I agree entirely with the hon. Lady's point of view.

National Parks

Mrs. Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view of the numerous building projects within the area of the approaches to Loch Lomond, he will now declare the nature, scope, and location of Scotland's national parks.

Mr. J. N. Browne: There are no statutory provisions relating to national parks in Scotland, but special arrangements, designed to safeguard rural amenity, apply to the handling of applications for planning permission in certain areas of Scotland, including the vicinity of Loch Lomond.

Mrs. Mann: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is great anxiety about the area surrounding Loch Lomond, which provides an outlet for the 2½ million people concentrated in the Clyde Valley, that the fear is that the area will be subject to a great deal of building operations, both at Balloch and on the way between Milngavie and Drymen, and would he not take steps to end the fear?

Mr. Browne: My right hon. Friend realises, as we all do, that Loch Lomond is a priceless asset of Scotland, and I can assure the hon. Lady that nothing will be done, which we can prevent, to spoil the amenities of the area.

Hospitals (Births)

Mrs. Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many births with a doctor in charge were actually con ducted in hospital in 1958; and what is the period of stay in such cases.

Mr. J. N. Browne: Seventy-two thousand nine hundred and sixty-five births took place in Scottish hospitals in 1958. There is always a doctor in charge of the patient, though he is not always present at the birth. The average duration of stay in hospital was ten days.

Mrs. Mann: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that it was necessary for all those women to flee like a crowd of battery hens and hatch their eggs in an institution surrounded by other squawking hens, when they could, with some cooperation on the part of the doctor, have had their babies at home?

Mr. Browne: I would hardly agree with the hon. Lady in referring to Scottish


mothers as squawking hens or battery hens. This is really a matter for the medical adviser.

Clean Air Act

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to impress on local authorities the need for using fully the powers conferred on them by the Clean Air Act.

Mr. J. N. Browne: My right hon. Friend wrote at the end of June to the local authorities of the areas in which smoke pollution is worst to urge faster progress with the setting up of smoke control areas and to ask them to let him have by 31st December their proposals for the next five years.

Mr. Rankin: This year?

Mr. Browne: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Rankin: How does the Minister know that he will be able to make use of them? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a widespread feeling that the Clean Air Council is not using sufficiently the powers conferred on it by the Clean Air Act; that his right hon. Friend might ginger up the Council a little more than he is doing in view of the great damage caused by fog, and that the Council should not be concentrating on particular areas but, for example, should regard the whole Clyde area as one district to be dealt with? One only needs to remember, as an example, that B.E.A. lost £350,000 last winter because of the ravages of fog.

Mr. Browne: It is up to the local authority to decide its smoke control area. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we are not satisfied with the progress made, and for that reason my right hon. Friend has written to councils, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, gingering them up.

Paper-Making Industry

Mr. Hoy: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the concern felt by Scottish paper makers regarding the proposed Free Trade Area; what representations he has received from them; and what action he is taking to safeguard the employment of people in this industry.

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why he has refused

to receive a deputation of representatives of the paper industry and certain local authorities, including Fife County Council, to discuss the effects on the Scottish paper industry of the implementation of the proposed Free Trade Area of the Outer Seven countries; and, in view of the particular severity of the effects of such a scheme on Scotland, whether he will reconsider his decision.

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why he refused to meet a deputation from Scottish local authorities concerning the proposed Outer Seven Free Trade Area and the paper-making trade in Scotland; and whether he will now change his decision.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has recently received a deputation from the British Paper and Board Manufacturers Association and has also received written representations from the Scottish local authorities. I too have received similar written representations from several local authorities including Fife County Council, and from the Scottish paper industry. The Government are, therefore, well aware of the factors both as regards the paper industry as a whole and the Scottish industry in particular, to which the local authorities drew attention.
I have assured the authorities that their representations have been brought to the attention of the Ministers immediately concerned and that they will be weighed very carefully together with all other relevant considerations.

Mr. Hoy: Yes, Sir, but is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the industry, which employs 17,000 men and women, many of them in rural parts of Scotland, is very important for these areas? Will he bear in mind that the industry also provides considerable employment for miners in Scotland, so that any threat to it would have the widest repercussions?

Mr. Maclay: Yes, Sir, I am well aware of these factors and so are my colleagues more directly concerned.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the Minister entirely satisfied with the decision he has made to refuse to meet the Fife County Council and other authorities? Is he aware that they know that the Secretary of


State has an obligation to put the Scottish point of view at Cabinet level, that this is all they are asking for, and that they are very angry at his attitude in refusing to meet them? Will he reconsider his decision, in view of the fact that, in Fife particularly, not only is there a paper industry which is threatened with extinction if this scheme goes through, but that it will also have adverse effects on the coal industry, as my hon. Friend has said?

Mr. Maclay: In reply to the first part of the supplementary question, as I think the hon. Gentleman knows, I see a great many deputations and there is a time limit on the absolute number I can receive. In particular, I would point out that in this case the issue is one which concerns areas in Scotland other than those which ask me to receive them, as well as areas in England and Wales. The local authorities concerned can rest assured that their views have been fully brought to the attention of all my colleagues.

Mr. Woodburn: On behalf of the whole of Scotland and other constituencies, including my own, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Scottish paper trade feels that the Government have given it rather a brush-off in the discussions? Surely it is entitled to receive some information about whether this really will be a death blow to the industry, and the silence of the Government gives it that impression. Or will the Government give some assurance that in those negotiations there will not be a complete wiping-out of the industry, which might mean the wiping-out of villages throughout Scotland?

Mr. Maclay: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has received a deputation from the industry. In regard to the latter part of his supplementary question, I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply given by my right hon. Friend last Thursday.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there are other Scottish Members well able to speak up for their own constituencies and that, although there is something in what the right hon. Gentleman has said,

there will be a great deal of support for the line which the Government are taking.

Mr. Hamilton: On a point of order. In view of the extremely unsatisfactory nature of the Secretary of State's reply, I beg to give notice that I will seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment or on the Report stage of the Consolidated Fund Bill.

Small Farmers Scheme (Grants)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many farmers had applied for Government grants under the Small Farmers' Assistance Scheme, and how many had been refused, up to 10th July.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord John Hope): Up to 10th July, 1,588 farmers had applied for grant under the Small Farmers Scheme and 248 applications had been refused.

Mr. Hughes: Can the Minister tell us how much money has been given in these cases?

Lord John Hope: That is another question.

Milk Production

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the milk situation in Scotland, in view of the concern of the farming community about future milk production.

Lord John Hope: As forecast in the Government's White Paper on the 1959 Annual Review, milk production has resumed its upward trend following the temporary drop in supplies in 1958–59 due mainly to unfavourable weather. I am glad to say that sales of milk for liquid consumption in Scotland now show a reversal of the downward trend of recent years, but supplies are still substantially in excess of the needs of the liquid market.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware of the dissatisfaction among milk producers about the agreement, by which they cannot sell milk across the Border to England, and can the hon. Gentleman give them any hope that he will take any action to reconsider that arrangement?

Lord John Hope: I think the hon. Gentleman knows that discussions with representatives of the milk producers are now taking place, and I would prefer not to go into any possibilities at the moment.

Farmers, Ayrshire (Grants)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many farmers in Ayrshire had applied for Government grants in Ayrshire up to 10th July; and how many had been granted.

Lord John Hope: I regret that it is not possible to give this information. To do so would require the availability and examination of records covering all kinds of Government grants and all the years since these grants were first made.

Mr. Hughes: Can the Minister give us information about the small farmers? How much is coming to Ayrshire under the Small Farmers Assistance Scheme?

Lord John Hope: If the hon. Gentleman puts down a Question about that I will do my best to answer it.

Anglo-Danish Trade Agreement

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the effect of the recent trade agreement between Great Britain and Denmark on the Scottish agricultural industry and its ancillary industries.

Mr. Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the effect of the projected outer seven Free Trade Area upon Scottish agricultural and industrial interests.

Mr. Maclay: I would refer the hon. Member to the assurances with regard to agriculture given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his statement of 9th July on the Anglo-Danish Agreement.
As regards industry generally, while [appreciate that some fears have been expressed in particular quarters, my belief is that the project would be of real benefit to Scotland as a whole.

Mr. Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the assurances to which he refers were quite unsatisfactory to North-East Scotland? Does he realise

that this agreement is likely to accentuate the unemployment problem which is already acute in Aberdeen City and County? Will he tell me what steps he is taking to protect Aberdeen from that disaster?

Mr. Maclay: The hon. and learned Gentleman is taking an entirely gloomy view of the situation. This agreement, should it be concluded, should be of the greatest value to Scotland as a whole, which is what we have all got to have in mind.

Mr. Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those who are immediately concerned have expressed very gloomy predictions about what is to happen to the industries which they know best—those concerned with paper and paper making? Does he appreciate that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us already that they are very expensive to him in Scotland? Are we to take it now that Scotland is expendable?

Mr. Maclay: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman is putting a quite unreasonable interpretation on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's remarks.

Nuclear Power Station, Crimond

Lady Tweedsmuir: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has now considered the representations he has received as to the establishment of a nuclear power station at Crimond; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. N. Macpherson: The North of Scotland Hydro Electric Board has no immediate need for a nuclear power station and has not yet reached the stage of deciding whether it will require one in later years. It has been examining various possible sites, including one at Crimond, but has so far made no firm proposals to my right hon. Friend.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Will my hon. Friend say whether representations have been made that when it comes to choosing a site Crimond should be examined with great care, because it will without doubt bring a lot of employment to the area if the project is established there?

Mr. Macpherson: Yes, Sir; representations have been made. As I say, that is one of the sites which have already been examined.

Housing Site, Arrochar

Mr. Steele: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has yet reached a decision with regard to the Dumbarton County Council's application for planning permission to a housing site at Arrochar.

Mr. J. N. Browne: I understand that the county council is seeking a housing site at Arrochar, but no specific proposal has yet been reported to my right hon. Friend's Department.

Mr. Steele: The hon. Gentleman surely recognises that it is the site between Tarbet and Arrochar to which I refer? This is a matter for which the county council has been asking for planning permission since 1951, and surely eight years is rather long even for the present Government? Can the hon. Gentleman give any idea when a decision will be made?

Mr. Browne: My right hon. Friend has not yet had the proposal, but I hope it will not be necessary for the Department to intervene.

Maternity Hospital Facilities, West Fife

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any further statement to make on the much-needed improvement of maternity hospital facilities on the West Fife area.

Mr. J. N. Browne: The regional board has worked out a co-ordinated admission policy with the consultants concerned: this will reduce bookings to a level consistent with the capacity of the hospital and so minimise the risk of cross-infection. Approval has been given to plans for improving the sanitary annexes and the work will be carried out as quickly as possible.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the Minister give an assurance that, as a result of the reorganisation proposals and the improvements in sanitary facilities, there will be no more of the sorry spectacle of women in labour in the corridors of this hospital?

Mr. Browne: It is not really for my right hon. Friend to give an assurance, but I sincerely hope that this local and difficult problem has now been solved.

Agriculture (Productivity and Wages)

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland by how much has productivity increased in agriculture in the last eight years; and what is the corresponding increase in the average earnings of the general worker.

Lord John Hope: Productivity in Scottish agriculture, as measured by the value of net output per man, increased by 69 per cent. from 1950–51 to 1958–59. In the same period the earnings of general agricultural workers increased by 65 per cent. and of all adult male agricultural workers by 68 per cent.

Mr. Hamilton: In view of those figures, will the hon. Gentleman take urgent steps to ensure that wages keep pace with productivity, in line with the Government's policy?

Lord John Hope: They have just about done so in this case.

Eyemouth Harbour Improvement Scheme

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement regarding the Eye mouth Harbour improvement scheme.

Lord John Hope: The Harbour Commissioners put forward a scheme estimated to cost between £350,000 and £500,000 for a new harbour entrance. At my right hon. Friend's request they are considering whether a less costly scheme would meet the needs of the harbour. The consulting engineers are in touch with the Hydraulics Research Station about the cheaper of the two schemes investigated by that station.

Bridge, Coldstream (Heavy Traffic)

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will give figures to show the extent to which super-heavy traffic is now using the bridge across the Tweed at Coldstream.

Mr. N. Macpherson: During the last three months fifty-five abnormal indivisible loads which travelled via Coldstream Bridge were notified to my right hon. Friend's Department.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: Is my hon. Friend aware that this heavy traffic is doing a great deal of damage to the


Berwickshire roads and that the local authorities are not satisfied that they are being adequately compensated for this extra-heavy through traffic?

Mr. Macpherson: I think my hon. Friend knows the position. My right hon. Friend is prepared to meet the cost of any works specifically required to enable the route to be used by a particular load, but ordinary maintenance can receive only the normal 75 per cent. grant. The road itself, as a Class I road, should be fit to carry these loads.

Loch Lomond (Drowning Accidents)

Mr. Steele: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if his attention has been drawn to the number of deaths by drowning which have taken place in Loch Lomond; and what action he proposes to take

Mr. J. N. Browne: I am aware that drowning accidents do occur in Loch Lomond all too often and I welcome this opportunity to stress the need for caution by people bathing and boating there. My right hon. Friend has no direct powers but will now discuss the question of adequate warning notices with the county councils concerned.

Mr. Steele: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, but can he tell me who is actually responsible and what action can be taken? Is it not possible to have some system to warn canoeists, boaters and others about unfavourable weather conditions?

Mr. Browne: The county council has powers to put up notices and issue such warnings, but it has to get approval from the proprietors of the lochside.

New Technical Colleges, Ayrshire

Mr. Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he estimates the two projected Ayrshire technical colleges will be started and completed.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I understand that Ayrshire Education Authority plans to start these colleges in March, 1961, and to have them completed by March, 1964.

Mr. Ross: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is four years since we first heard the cry of triumph from the Government benches that these colleges were

to be started? Surely the Secretary of State will try to do something a little better than this? Does it take ten years to build a college?

Mr. Macpherson: The hon. Gentleman has followed the matter very carefully and he knows that there was considerable unavoidable delay in the early stages over the acquisition of land. I can assure him that the Government will do everything in their power to assist the education authority to improve upon its estimate.

Mr. Ross: Surely it should take less than three years to settle the question of the land? The original estimates were that the colleges would cost a quarter of a million pounds each. Is it true that as a result of the delays they will cost half a million pounds each?

Mr. Macpherson: No, Sir; that is not true. The Kilmarnock college is now estimated to cost £500,000.

Mr. Ross: That is half a million pounds.

Mr. Macpherson: It is true that the original estimate was £250,000, but at that time there was very much less experience to indicate the likely cost of building these technical colleges.

Midwives, Ayrshire

Mr. Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking to ensure adequate midwifery staff for hospital and domiciliary work in Ayrshire.

Mr. J. N. Browne: My right hon. Friend hopes that the new salaries for midwives which are to take effect from 1st March this year will improve the staffing position in Ayrshire. A Memorandum went to hospital authorities in April, suggesting ways of making midwifery in hospitals more attractive. My right hon. Friend is asking hospital authorities to discuss with the local authorities in Ayrshire means of ensuring that available resources are used to the best advantage.

Law Reform Committee

Lady Tweedsmuir: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now refer to the Scottish Law Reform


Committee the problem of the expenses incurred by claimants who have no liability.

Mr. N. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland, will consider with his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, the desirability of the question to which I think my hon. Friend refers being remitted to the Law Reform Committee.

Lady Tweedsmuir: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he bear in mind that under Scottish law there is now no possibility whatever of obtaining costs where a wrongful claim has been made against the claimant, and will he try his best to see that the decision is taken before long?

Mr. Macpherson: As my hon. Friend knows, at present the amount which an assisted person who loses his case must pay to the other side is the amount which the court decides it is reasonable for him to pay having regard to all the circumstances. It is not quite as my hon. Friend said, but my right hon. Friend will certainly consider the whole matter very carefully.

Firms, Glasgow (Overspill Areas)

Mr. McInnes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will indicate the number of firms who have removed from Glasgow to overspill receiving areas under the Town Development (Scotland) Act, 1957, since June, 1957, to date.

Mr. J. N. Browne: One medium size firm and we believe four small ones.

Mr. McInnes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we regard it as a most remarkable achievement by the Government that they have attracted or prevailed upon only five firms in more than two years to go to overspill areas? How long does he expect it will take to get the 200 or 300 firms which are needed to deal with the problem of Glasgow's overspill?

Mr. Browne: If the hon. Gentleman had phrased his Question a little differently, the answer would have been about twenty-three firms, because in addition to those which I have already mentioned, two substantial firms expect to occupy new premises in September,

three have made firm arrangements to move, seven are in active consultation with local authorities, and six are known to be actively making plans.

Mr. McInnes: Is it in order to phrase Questions to suit the Government Front Bench?

Abandoned Properties, Glasgow

Mr. McInnes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if his attention has been directed to the large number of privately-rented houses which have been abandoned by their owners in Glasgow; what representations he has received from the Glasgow Corporation regarding the cost of repairs which it has to carry out to abate nuisance and also the cost of ultimate demolition; and what reply he has made.

Mr. J. N. Browne: My right hon. Friend knows that abandoned properties often create a serious problem, but he has received no representations from the Corporation on the subject.

Mr. McInnes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this problem is peculiar to the City of Glasgow and that this reprehensible practice of each year abandoning several hundred properties has cost the local authority a large sum of money, hundreds of thousands of pounds? If the local authority makes representations, can the hon. Gentleman indicate whether there is any hope of its getting financial assistance from the Government?

Mr. Browne: I am afraid that I cannot answer that supplementary question at this juncture.

Licensing Laws (Committee)

Mr. McInnes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is now in a position to announce the membership of the committee of inquiry to review the licensing laws in Scotland.

Mr. N. Macpherson: No, Sir, not yet.

Mr. McInnes: The hon. Gentleman took a long time to rise and to say, "Not yet".

Orkney (Steamer Services)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now make a further statement on the steamer services to the North Isles of Orkney.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I regret I am not in a position to add to the Answer I gave to the hon. Member on 9th June because the necessary discussions have taken longer than expected.

Mr. Grimond: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many people in Orkney would like to join with the Government in expressing regret at the death of Mr. McGillivray who has been conducting these inquiries for a long time? Will the hon. Gentleman say something about the form which further inquiries will take in view of Mr. McGillivray's death?

Mr. Macpherson: I associate the Government with the expression of sympathy which the hon. Gentleman has made on the death of Mr. McGillivray who, as the hon. Gentleman knows, was a very great help in this matter. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that discussions will go on just the same. In fact, we had already passed the stage where Mr. McGillivray was vital to our discussions.

Education (Higher Leaving Certificate)

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many candidates for each of the past two years were presented for the Higher Leaving Certificate in a group of subjects qualifying for entry to a university; and what percentage of these was successful.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I regret that the information for which the hon. Member asks is not available. The general records of passes do not distinguish between passes in subjects qualifying for university entrance and those in subjects which do not.

Summerston

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has yet received a reply from the National Coal Board in response to his recent representations concerning the future development at Summerston.

Mr. J. N. Browne: I have asked the National Coal Board to submit a comprehensive and current assessment of the probable ultimate need for, or the timing of, this project.

Mr. Hannan: That information was available to the House three weeks ago.

The delay in this matter is quite indefensible. Cannot the Under-Secretary agree that this requires a major Government decision as between the interests of housing, coal and agriculture? Why does he fiddle about with the question and delay a decision?

Mr. Browne: My hon. Friend is not fiddling about with it. This is a very important matter affecting the lives of many people and we think it right to have a comprehensive and current assessment.

Prestwick Airport (A.77 Road)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the diversion of A.77 round the eastern end of Prestwick Airport will be completed.

Mr. N. Macpherson: About midsummer, 1961.

Mr. Rankin: Has any attempt been made to estimate how this diversion will affect the traffic now carried across the level crossing of the extended runway at Prestwick?

Mr. Macpherson: Roughly speaking, it is thought that it will be likely to take about half the traffic when it is completed. I should point out that as the diversion is to be a double carriageway, it does not follow that it will not be able to take traffic until it is completed, although I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman how soon it will be able to take traffic.

Sir T. Moore: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that if the completion of this diversion can be expedited, it will go a long way to meeting the feelings of disappointment created by the Government's failure to construct a tunnel under the runway?

Mr. Macpherson: Yes, Sir. We appreciate the urgent need for this diversion.

Migraine

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons in Scotland are known to be suffering from migraine.

Mr. J. N. Browne: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Rankin: Why is it that we are authoritatively told that in England there are three million sufferers from this


disease, while we cannot have the figures for Scotland? Is it the case that the Scottish Health Department is more inefficient than the English?

Mr. Browne: According to my information, there are no authoritative figures.

Criminal Charges (Costs on Acquittal)

Lady Tweedsmuir: asked the Lord Advocate whether he will now make a statement on the consideration he has given to the provision of facilities for the award of costs to persons acquitted on a criminal charge in Scotland.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. W. R. Milligan): The problem is a complex one, and my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, and I would prefer to await the report of the Committee at present considering legal aid in criminal cases before deciding whether it should be investigated, and, if so, whether the investigation should be by the Scottish Law Reform Committee or by some other body.

Lady Tweedsmuir: When does the Lord Advocate expect this report? Will he bear in mind that in this respect Scottish law is very much worse than that south of the Border?

The Lord Advocate: It is hoped that this report will be received towards the end of this year. I respectfully disagree with what the hon. Lady said in her second supplementary question.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Would it not be more sensible to ask the Committee to consider this matter before it rises, so that it can be part of its ultimate report?

The Lord Advocate: No, Sir. It would be a pity to invite this Committee to start on this matter now, because it may well be that when we receive the report the whole scope of the inquiry will be altered.

Oral Answers to Questions — RHODESIA AND NYASALAND (CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE)

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Prime Minister how many meetings he has had with the Federal Prime Minister; and what decisions were made regarding the constitutional conference to discuss the future of Rhodesia and Nyasaland.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I would ask the hon. Gentleman to await the statement I shall be making at the end of Questions.

Mr. Stonehouse: On the specific question of the constitutional conference, may I ask whether a date has been arranged and whether or not the Prime Minister agrees that it would be in the interests of British protected persons in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland that a plebiscite should be held before the full conference takes place?

The Prime Minister: I think it would be better to await the statement later today. Also, I understand that we are to have a whole day's debate on Central Africa tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER OF JAPAN (DISCUSSIONS)

Mr. Healey: asked the Prime Minister to what extent he discussed with the Prime Minister of Japan the creation of an atom-free zone in the Pacific.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the joint communiqué which was issued at the end of the Japanese Prime Minister's visit.

Mr. Healey: As the Japanese Prime Minister has said that his country does not propose to have atomic weapons and as the Chinese Prime Minister has said that his country does, would not discussion of the Russian proposal be wholly in the Western interests?

The Prime Minister: It is not customary to divulge the details of talks with statesmen of other countries. The purpose of a communiqué is to get the agreement of both sides as to what each shall say, and I regard myself as bound by that understanding.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Holland (Quota Restrictions)

Mr. Snow: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that if the Danes are relieved of paying 10 per cent. duty on bacon exports to this country, the only countries which export bacon to this country on a substantial scale which will still have to pay duty will be Poland and Holland; and,


in view of the increasing strain on trading relations between this country and Holland, having regard to the quota restriction on Dutch bulbs and the restrictions placed on K.L.M. operations in the Far East, whether he will arrange early discussions with the Dutch with a view to discussing remedial action.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan): The next talks on trade quotas with representatives of the Benelux countries will be held in December. I would remind the hon. Member that the whole of the Dutch tariff will be removed from imports from Holland's partners in the Common Market while being maintained against imports from this country.

Soya Bean Meal and Oilseed Proteins

Mr. Willey: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will remove the import duties on soya bean meal and on oilseed proteins.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: If an application is made by users for the removal or alteration of these duties, I will consider it.

Mr. Willey: Will the Minister of State consider it anyway? We are removing the tariff on bacon and it would seem sensible to take the reciprocal step of removing tariffs on imported feeding-stuffs which add to the costs of our home producers.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: It is normal practice for the users to apply if they think that they have a case.

Paper and Board Manufacturers (Representations)

Mr. Hamilton: asked the President of the Board of Trade what further representations he has received from paper and board manufacturers concerning the possibility of the formation of the little Free Trade Area; whether he has yet concluded his consideration of the report by officials at last month's Stockholm meeting; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: My right hon. Friend has received a number of further representations from individual firms but reactions from industry generally have

been favourable. The report by officials is at present being discussed by Ministers of the seven countries in Stockholm, and a statement on the outcome of these discussions will be made in due course.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the Minister of State aware that there is a very special Scottish concern in the paper industry? Since the Secretary of State for Scotland has refused to meet a deputation from Scotland, will the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend undertake to meet that deputation?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: My right hon. Friend has in fact already received a deputation from the United Kingdom Paper and Board Makers' Association.

Companies (Political Expenditure)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce legislation requiring public limited companies to state separately in their published accounts all expenditure of a political character.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Rodgers): No, Sir. As my right hon. Friend said in answer to a Question from the hon. Member on 13th November, 1958, this is not a type of information that the Companies Act envisages as necessary for the protection of shareholders.

Mr. Allaun: I am not particularly concerned with shareholders. Is it not undermining democracy if, under the general description of advertising, large and increasing sums which are devoted by a handful of directors to political campaigns are concealed from the general public? Are not the dice already sufficiently loaded against the working classes?

Mr. Rodgers: A question about payment for alleged political campaigns would be better addressed to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. H. Morrison: If out of corporate funds within their trust companies are spending moneys for political purposes, is it not a matter of elementary public policy that they should be declared? Is it not the case that this happens with the trade unions and the Co-operative movement? Why, because limited liability


companies are spending money mostly in the interests of the Conservative Party, should the Government go out of their way to say that, because they are doing this, the Government are going to cover it up?

Mr. Rodgers: The Income Tax Act, 1952, provides that no sum is to be deducted unless it is
wholly and exclusively laid out or expended for the purposes of the trade.
The board of directors has a duty to protect its particular interests.

Mr. Gower: Is not some distinction to be drawn between money paid to a particular political party and money devoted to fighting policies which threaten the very existence of companies?

Mr. Gordon Walker: Would it not be in the interests of the shareholders to know this? There may be shareholders in the new shareholding democracy who do not approve of this expenditure. Have not they a right to know how their money is being expended so that they can protest if they desire to do so?

Mr. Rodgers: Shareholders have a right to ask questions at the annual general meeting.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I undertook to inform the House early this week of the proposed date of the Adjournment for the Summer Recess. We have every hope that all the necessary Business can be disposed of to enable the House to Adjourn for the Summer Recess on Thursday, 30th July.

Mr. Gaitskell: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Devlin Report will be published?

Mr. Butler: We hope before the end of this week.

FEDERAL CONSTITUTION OF RHODESIA AND NYASALAND (ADVISORY COMMISSION)

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement. This will, I hope, meet the general convenience of the House, since there is to be a debate tomorrow on Central Africa.
One of the subjects with which that debate will no doubt be concerned will be the question of what machinery, if any, should be set up to prepare the ground for the review of the Federal Constitution of Rhodesia and Nyasaland which is to take place towards the end of 1960.
As is generally known, I have had a number of private talks with the Leader of the Opposition and some of his colleagues on this matter. My right hon. Friends and I have had the advantage of personal discussions with Sir Roy Welensky, the Federal Prime Minister, and we have also been in consultation with the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia and the Governors of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. It is now the duty of Her Majesty's Government to put forward definite proposals, which I have communicated to the Leader of the Opposition.
The 1960 review will be of major importance in determining the future of Central Africa. Great issues, human and political, will be at stake—issues of constitutional evolution, economic development and inter-racial harmony. The Government are convinced that careful preparation for this conference is essential. Officials of the five Governments are already engaged in assembling the necessary material. Nevertheless, we are convinced that some additional constructive preparation is desirable. Accordingly, we propose that an Advisory Commission be appointed for this purpose, with the following terms of reference:
In the light of the information provided by the Committee of Officials and of any additional information the Commission may require, to advise the five Governments, in preparation for the 1960 review, on the constitutional programme and framework best suited to the achievement of the objects contained in the Constitution of 1953, including the Preamble.


The membership of the Commission will be as follows:
The Chairman—from the United Kingdom.
Six Privy Councillors—Members of the United Kingdom Parliament, including three from opposition parties.
Six independent members, of whom four will be chosen from the United Kingdom and two, we hope, from other Commonwealth countries having experience of the working of a federal Constitution.
Four to come from the Federation as a whole, to be proposed by the Federal Government.
Three from Southern Rhodesia, to be proposed by the Southern Rhodesian Government.
Three each from Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland.
Of the 13 members drawn from Central Africa, five will be Africans and Done will be members of their respective Governments or Legislatures.
We think that a comprehensive Commission of this knd will enable Governments to approach the conference with the best possible advice at their disposal; promote greater public understanding of the issues involved; and do something to create a common approach to these very difficult problems among all concerned. Our paramount object, in considering this matter, has been to try to create, both here and in Africa a common mind on the next stages of the political evolution of the Federation. This seems to us the imaginative and creative course.
We have thought it right that Europeans and Africans who live in Rhodesia and Nyasaland should have a part in the consideration of matters so vital to their future. For this is not an academic exercise. It concerns the lives and homes of all the population of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, of whatever race. At the same time, we are anxious to have a broad cross-section of opinion and knowledge from this country, and some entirely independent advice from elsewhere in the Commonwealth.
The Commission will be expected to hold its first meeting in London in the autumn to plan its programme of work.

By that time material will also be becoming available to it from the Committee of Officials of the five Governments which, as I have said, will, in any case, be carrying out an official factual survey and analysis in advance of the 1960 conference.
The proposal which I have outlined has been worked out in consultation with the Government of the Federation and the other authorities concerned, all of whom are determined to make their best possible contribution to the work of the Commission, to designate for it people of distinction and independent mind, and to give all the necessary facilities.
Where so much is at stake the Government have felt that a comprehensive and creative approach is needed. The work of the Commission will be onerous, but will, I hope, be fruitful.
I am sure that this hope will be shared by everyone in this country, of whatever party or political opinion. I therefore trust that hon. Members on both sides of the House will give this Advisory Commission their support and good will.

Mr. Gaitskell: We can, I am sure, all agree that the conference to review the Constitution of the Federation is certainly one of the very greatest importance for Central Africa, and, indeed, for us all. I think that we can further agree that there is much to be said for some preparatory work being done before that conference meets. If this preparatory work can create, to quote the Prime Minister's words, "both here and in Africa a common mind on the next stages of the political evolution of the Federation "that will certainly be all to the good.
However, I am bound to say that I see very serious objections to the particular form of Commission proposed by the Government. I do not propose to go into this in detail this afternoon, because we shall have an opportunity of doing so tomorrow, but I should like briefly to say that it seems to me of paramount importance at this moment that anything that we do in this matter should command the assent of the African peoples as a whole. I have the gravest doubts about whether the Commission so formed, with half its membership nominated by the Governments of the Central


Federation, Southern Rhodesia, and, I gather, Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia, is likely to do just that.
Secondly it seems to me a danger that a Commission of this kind, with these terms of reference, may well be anticipating too much the 1960 conference itself. That, again, seems to me a mistake, because it is of immense importance that at that conference African opinion should be properly represented through the Governments of the territories concerned.
Thirdly, we do not feel that six Members from this Parliament out of 26 adequately represents the great responsibilities of the British Parliament in this matter.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister certain questions which will help to elucidate the proposals of the Government in preparation for tomorrow's debate.
First, the Prime Minister has referred to consultations with Sir Roy Welensky, the Governors of Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia, and the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia. He also mentioned the private talks that we have had. Did the Governors of Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia consult other persons in those territories, and were any Africans whatsoever consulted before this decision was taken?
Secondly, who, if it is not the Governors, will appoint the members of the Commission to come from Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland?
Thirdly, who is to appoint the five Africans, and from which territories are they to come?
Fourthly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] These are all very straightforward questions, to which I would have thought the Prime Minister would have ready answers. Fourthly, which Commonwealth countries are, as it were, those from which Commonwealth representatives will be nominated? For instance, do those countries include India, the West Indies and Malaya? I have mentioned those three specifically, but if the Prime Minister can say precisely which countries are involved in that respect it would be a help to us all.
Finally, was it necessary to limit even the small representation from this Parlia-

ment to Privy Councillors? Is it not desirable that the House should be more widely represented from among those who have not yet attained that rank?

The Prime Minister: As the Leader of the Opposition has said, this matter will be debated at length tomorrow. I rather regret that he thought it necessary to take so firm a position at this stage. I would have hoped that the importance of the question, which we all recognise, would have made us try to see whether we could not reach at any rate a great degree of harmony in the House upon so vital a matter. However, we will go into the detail of that tomorrow. The right hon. Gentleman has his responsibilities and he alone can carry them.
The right hon. Gentleman's first question concerned the matter of consultations. The consultations took place with the Governments or Governors. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman asked whether, in forming their views, the Governors had any formal consultations with the Africans in their territories. I do not think that they had any formal consultation, but they are always in informal touch, and they took this matter fully into consideration.
The right hon. Gentleman's third question concerned the distribution of African representatives. The final appointments will be made by the United Kingdom Government, on the advice of the Governors or Governments. As for distribution, we had in mind that from each of the four territories there should be one African, except in respect of Nyasaland, where we thought there should be two. That would seem to be more in proportion, having regard to the relations of the different populations. There are four Governments, including the Federation, and we had in mind one African from each of the territories, including the Federation as such, and two in the case of Nyasaland, for the reason that the ratio between the European population and the African population there is so very different from that in the other territories.

Mr. Bevan: Who picks the Africans?

The Prime Minister: I have answered that. They will be appointed by the United Kingdom on the advice of the Governors or Governments. The Federal appointee will be appointed on


the advice of the Prime Minister, because they are an independent Government, not responsible to us.
The last question concerned the six Members of the United Kingdom Parliament, and whether they should all be Privy Councillors. There will be 13 members from what one might call the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth, and I thought that six Members of the United Kingdom Parliament who were Privy Councillors would be best and right—[H0N. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—because I think that there is a good deal to be said for that. This is a very serious affair. We must bear in mind that of the other ones directly appointed from the United Kingdom side we wanted four independents, who might be economists, or professors of constitutional law, or sociologists, and we wanted two from the Commonwealth. With the chairman, that makes up the 13 who will definitely come from the United Kingdom.
As for which countries of the Commonwealth will be involved, we have not absolutely decided that, but we all felt that it would be valuable to draw rather from those countries which are federally organised and have this problem of federation, such as Australia, Canada, the West Indian Federation or even Malaya, rather than those which are of a unitary character. [HON. MEMBERS: "India?"] I do not rule that out. We want those who have had particular knowledge of the problem of the federal organisation of their system.

Mr. Gaitskell: I was surprised to hear the opening remarks of the Prime Minister in his reply to me. He was well aware, from the private talks which took place, of our objections to this form of Commission. We have considered this question very seriously and at great length and, with the best will in the world, although we would have liked to reach agreement on such an important matter, we found that it was impossible, for the reasons I have given.

The Prime Minister: I would not have made any reference to our private talks except that they took place, and I referred to them in my statement only after consultation with the right hon. Gentleman, and sending the text of the reference to him. I wish to make it quite clear that I asked him. I would

have preferred not to refer to them, but I think that the talks were well known and had somehow got into the Press. I therefore thought it courteous to send the right hon. Gentleman the precise form in which I would make my statement. But I am not prepared to discuss—nor, I believe, is the right hon. Gentleman—what we said to each other, nor am I prepared to discuss the points of agreement or disagreement. I still appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the position and see whether he cannot make this a united approach.

Mr. Gaitskell: May I say merely that the Prime Minister is being extremely disingenuous in appearing to give the impression that we were hearing these proposals for the first time, and were rushing in to make up our minds without considering them?

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman says that, I shall have to go into the details of what we discussed.

Mr. Gaitskell: So far as we are concerned I have no objection whatever to the Prime Minister doing that. Indeed, I think that it would enormously simplify the debate tomorrow if we agree upon that.
There are two other questions I should like to put to the Prime Minister. First, can he tell us anything about the timing of the opening of this Commission, when it is proposed that the Privy Councillors shall be selected? There are rumours of an early General Election. Is it intended that they should be chosen before the election or after the election? Secondly, on the terms of reference, may I ask him—this is a rather important question—do they imply that the Commission must assume that in all circumstances federation continues?

The Prime Minister: I will try to answer those questions immediately and, I hope, clearly. With regard to the timing of the Commission, we should like the Commission to start its operations in the autumn. With regard to the General Election, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is necessary that it should take place before May of next year. Having that in view, we shall try to get on with the nomination of the Commission as soon as may be and it will be formed as soon as we can get it into being. But


if there was a way in which I could still get some support—if I could help to get a greater measure of support in naming the independent chairman or matters of that kind—I should be ready to consult with the right hon. Gentleman.
In reply to the second question, the terms of reference, I think that it will be clear to us—the review is laid down in the Act—but if questions were put about the possibility of secession being within the purview of the Advisory Commission, I would say that it was clear to me that the Commission would be free, in practice, to hear all points of view from whatever quarter on whatever subject, although, of course, we thought it right to give it terms of reference which accord with what we regard as the object of the 1960 review.

Mr. Turton: As the terms of reference refer to the Preamble of the Constitution, and as that Preamble refers to consulting the wishes of the inhabitants, can my right hon. Friend say whether these wishes will be ascertained by consulting the Legislatures?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, the machinery for carrying out the very important obligation that lies upon us all in the Preamble must be both by the Commission and by the review, and I would say that while the Legislatures of the Northern Territories are constituted in their present stage to conduct their ordinary affairs they would not be more than one element in the machinery which might be devised for the purpose of obtaining the views of the inhabitants.

Mr. Grimond: Is the Prime Minister aware that I have a certain amount of sympathy with the point made by the Leader of the Opposition about Privy Councillors? I have not had an opportunity of consulting my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), but should there be any difficulty this might be a point.
I am sure that there is a wide measure of agreement that a Commission would be valuable if it could gain the confidence of the Africans. That is the great point. In that connection, it seems at first sight that possibly the terms of reference of the Commission might be reconsidered. They would appear to tie the Commission somewhat to assuming

the future. It is obviously of the greatest importance who is appointed to represent Africans on the Commission. May I put this specific point? When it comes to the Commonwealth representation there are, apparently, to be only two representatives. Without asking the right hon. Gentleman to make any specific announcement now, may I say that it seems of the greatest importance that one should come from what might be broadly called the non-white Commonwealth. If the right hon. Gentleman could give an assurance that that would be so, it would be valuable.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said and the spirit in which he has approached this matter. [Laughter.] I hope that it will not do him any harm.
Regarding the hon. Gentleman's point about Privy Councillors, time marches on, and one never knows.
On the second point regarding the terms of reference, I think that they must be attuned to the 1960 review which is statutory, because that is the object. I have just said that, in practice, I am quite sure the widest discussions will be taking place with a Commission of this character.
I will bear the hon. Gentleman's third point in mind. I particularly wanted that they should be territories from parts of the Commonwealth which have experience of federation and it is true that that would include nominated representatives and non-Europeans.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be general dissatisfaction in the country about the composition of this Commission? Why has he decided to undermine the authority of this House, which is primarily responsible for the constitutional review? Why has he not agreed to the suggestion that there should be a genuine Parliamentary Commission from this House? Is he aware that Africans in Central Africa will have no confidence in the African representatives on this Commission, as they will be appointed by Governments which they do not recognise, and as the Commission will be operating at a time when African organisations in Southern Rhodesia are all unlawful and during the period of a state of emergency in


Nyasaland, and while there are hundreds of Africans in detention for political reasons? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear all that in mind?

The Prime Minister: Of course, I will bear in mind all the contributions made by the hon. Gentleman. On the major point that he made, the responsibility of the United Kingdom Parliament, that responsibility, of course, remains unchanged by any Advisory Commission which may sit. When we come to the review it is all laid down in the Act. There will be a review of Governments and the United Kingdom's Parliamentary responsibility remains unchanged.
The purpose here seems to me—we shall debate it tomorrow—to be a perfectly simple one and not an ignoble one: simply to try to get, from as wide a number of people as we possibly and conveniently can, help to analyse the contributions to the thought on this matter. The second matter, which I think of considerable importance, is that in this very process there may be work of education and conciliation which this Commission can itself do.

Mr. Shinwell: Do I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that the proposals cannot be altered, that it is not possible to consider alternative proposals? Is not this to a substantial extent not essentially a Government matter, but a House of Commons matter, a matter for Parliament? Surely the right hon. Gentleman will consider proposals which are not altogether in line with those which he has presented to the House.
Suppose that during the debate tomorrow, for example, some of my right hon. and hon. Friends—not myself, because I am not an expert on the subject—venture to offer alternative proposals. Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman will not give them consideration at all?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I thought that it would be convenient—the Government carries the responsibility, they must do so long as they have the support of the House of Commons—for the very purpose which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind, to make a statement today, hoping that hon. Members would consider it when it was more clearly set out. We have the debate tomorrow and if there were points on

which it were thought that changes might be made I will consult with those who have taken some responsibility with me, and bear all that in mind. But to have gone on to the end of the summer without any Government proposals, or without making any reference to this matter, which has been so much discussed in so many quarters, would have been shirking our duty. In the light of tomorrow's debate, we shall have to make our final decisions.

Mr. Wall: While welcoming my right hon. Friend's imaginative proposal, particularly the inclusion of Commonwealth representatives, may I ask him whether, out of the 13 representatives of Central Africa, it may be possible to find at least one from each of the three Federal political parties which, between them, represent large sections of African opinion?

The Prime Minister: The Commission will take evidence from everybody—that is one thing—and ascertain the views of all kinds of different people.
Then there is the membership. On the membership, I found—it may be right or wrong—exactly the opposite point of view presented by the Prime Minister of the Federation and his friends on representation. They are particularly anxious not to have members of their own Government in—not even Members of their own Parliaments or Legislatures. They wish to choose people of independent mind and experience, whether European or African, without regard to the party position.

Mr. Callaghan: The Prime Minister has said that the 1960 conference was necessary statutorily. He made the point that it must be held by 1962. In these circumstances, if there is general agreement on the means of getting African assent and carrying them with the Government in any report that is made, would the Prime Minister be open to consider the suggestion that the date of the conference should not be 1960, but, in fact, that the conference may be put back until the Legislatures in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland are more representative of African opinion through reforms in those two territories?

The Prime Minister: Of course, what is statutory is that it must be within seven or nine years. I have heard the


proposal that, in spite of the agreement in the Declaration of 1957, the review should be postponed. I have thought a great deal about it, and there are arguments on both sides, but I would prefer to deploy them in debate. In my view, it would be a mistake, and would add to, rather than reduce, the uncertainty.

Mr. Bevan: I do not want to anticipate the debate, but two questions arise at this stage. First, if it turns out that the five African representatives will not command sufficient support among Africans, would it not be wise for the Prime Minister to keep an open mind about the number of Commonwealth representatives who might serve there? He might be able to correct that by increasing the number of Commonwealth representatives, particularly from those who can command African support.
Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman proposing to allow those in detention to give evidence before the Commission?

The Prime Minister: On the first point, I take note of that, but I am very anxious that we should find—and I believe that it will be possible to find—five Africans to sit upon the Commission who will command the respect of their fellow-countrymen—not necessarily the political support, but the respect.
With regard to ascertaining the views of those who, at the moment the Com-

mission is operating, are in detention, that, of course, can and will be arranged.

Mr. Foot: May we ask the Prime Minister for an assurance that those African leaders of opinion who command of a very wide measure of public support, but who are at the moment detained without trial, will not necessarily be ruled out from membership of the Commission?

The Prime Minister: In appointing the Commission, I do not think that it would be possible for me to make appointments from organisations which are at present illegal. At the same time, it is quite possible that progress may have been made by the time the Commission is finally appointed. I will bear in mind the point which the hon. and learned Member has made.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock; and that if the first three Resolutions proposed shall have been agreed to by the Committee of Supply before half-past Nine o'clock, the Chairman shall proceed to put forthwith the Questions which he is directed to put at half-past Nine o'clock by paragraph (6) of Standing Order No. 16 (Business of supply).—[The Prime Minister.]

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[25TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLE MENTARY ESTIMATE, 1959–60; ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1959–60; MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTI MATE,1959–60;NAVY ESTIMATES; ARMY ESTI MATES; AIR ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTI MATE, 1959–60

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £3,052,676, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for expenditure in respect of the Services included in the following Civil Estimates, viz:

Civil Estimates, 1959–60



£


£ Class II, Vote 4 (Commonwealth Relations Office)
1,913,134


Class II. Vote 7 (Colonial Office)
1,139,542


Total
£3,052,676

Mr. Ellis Smith: Can we have an explanation of what we are doing now, Sir Charles?

The Chairman: That Vote has been agreed to by the Committee. This one was taken formally so that it will be the one to be discussed first on Report.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Does it mean that it is automatically going through?

The Chairman: It has gone through.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Does it mean that this Vote, covering an expenditure of millions of pounds, which has not been examined in detail, has automatically gone through?

The Chairman: Nobody challenged it when I put the Question.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I am challenging it now, Sir Charles.

The Chairman: I have collected the voices.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Yes, Sir Charles, but you did it very quickly. I am not being critical, because I have a great respect for the Chair, which works very efficiently, but we must be on our guard as well. I admit that I was a little bit slow, but I should now like to know what is the position.

The Chairman: I am sorry if I went quickly, but I always do. The point is quite simple. This Vote can be discussed on Report on Wednesday. It has been put down as the first one on the Order Paper so as to get it to the top of the list.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Thank you, Sir Charles. That has brought that out.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £165,518,079, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for expenditure in respect of the Services included in the following Civil Estimates, viz.:

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1959–60



£


Class VIII, Vote 1 (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food)
12,472,115


Class VIII, Vote 2 (Agricultural and Food Grants and Subsidies) (including a Supplementary sum of £225,020)
128,223,200


Class VIII, Vote 11 (Department of Agriculture for Scotland)
24,822,764


Total
£165,518,079

PIG PRODUCTION AND THE BACON INDUSTRY

4.7 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I always like, whenever I can, to begin on a note of common agreement, and I am sure that the whole Committee will agree with me when I say that the House of Commons will be very much the poorer when my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) leaves us, having announced his retirement from Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am sure that no one will take offence if I say that he has been a very great friend of the agricultural industry.
Of the Minister himself, I would say, once again, that I recognise the charm with which he endears himself to the


House, but I would advise him to hold fast to this asset, because he is a very unlucky Minister, becoming increasingly in difficulties with different sections of the industry for which he is responsible. Last week, we discussed fishing, and I called his attention to the fact that everyone who took part in the debate criticised his Department. Today we are to discuss pigs and the bacon industry, and I anticipate that the same course will be followed.
We have to remember that pigs are found on two-thirds of all the holdings in this country, and that they are of particular importance to the small farmer. We have also to appreciate that they have a far wider importance than even to agriculture. Since 1951, the taxpayer, by way of subsidy, has price-supported this industry to the extent of £326 million; that is in addition to the tariffs on Danish bacon, running to £18 million or £19 million.
I say this not to criticise or disparage the industry, because it is agreed on both sides of the Committee that the present machinery for supporting this industry is the best that we have been able to devise. I have called the attention of the Committee to this, because we have to recognise that the nation has a considerable interest in this industry and has a considerable stake in its prosperity and efficiency.
We should ask ourselves who has had the benefit of this support. Certainly not the taxpayer as a shopper, because, even allowing for the fall in retail prices over the past couple of months—and it will be temporary—retail prices are now considerably higher than they were in 1951. It is difficult to see how the industry has benefited. We have previously debated the trend in farm incomes. So far as pigs are concerned, if we take the price indices which the Ministry provides, prices were less than in 1953. They have run down over the past year, and if we look at the position this year we find that there has been a very sharp rundown, which has been further depressed by the news of the Anglo-Danish Agreement. This affected pedigree pigs also, which is very depressing.
Has this support brought stability to the industry? It certainly has not. The fluctuations that beset the industry—the

pig cycle—have been more aggravated since 1951 than they were pre-war. We had a production peak in 1954, but this was followed by the depression in 1955 which led the Government to institute the Bosanquet Commission. We had a peak last year, but it was followed by the position today, in which supplies of home-produced pigmeat are expected to decline catastrophically. Official estimates are that in the next twelve months there will be 1¼ million to 1½ million fewer pigs for slaughter in the United Kingdom.
We have argued all this for decades. It all undermines confidence in the industry and hampers efficiency and technical progress. The only difference between the position now and pre-war is that the fluctuations today are the result of deliberate Government policy, resulting from the incentives and disincentives of the Price Reviews. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman has shown a particular flair in this matter. We are to have this shortfall of pig meat overlapping the shortfall he has contrived in imported and home-produced beef supplies.
What has happened, and what will happen over the next twelve months, will be the result of Government policy. The Government declared, in the White Paper of 1958, that
The trend of output must be reversed.
It certainly has been reversed, but with this very real stake in the industry we must ask ourselves why. It is true that we have a higher level of production than we had pre-war but it is equally true that we have a higher level of consumption.
We are particularly concerned this afternoon with the bacon side of the industry. We obtained figures the other day showing that in 1958 home-produced supplies were 42 per cent. of the domestic market. That figure compares very favourably with the 32 per cent. before the war, but it has already run down sharply. What it does not do is to compare favourably with the 49 per cent. of the market which home-producers had in 1951. Probably our share of the home market has fallen by about 10 per cent. since 1951.

Sir Anthony Hurd: Sir Anthony Hurd (Newbury) indicated dissent.

Mr. Willey: I will concede to the Government—no doubt the hon. Member


for Newbury (Sir A. Hurd) will agree with me about this—that they have succeeded in their objective of reversing the production trend. They have reduced production; in fact, they have done it Quite dramatically.

Sir A. Hurd: The Government have also taken bacon off the ration, where it was in 1951.

Mr. Willey: I have previously argued in this Committee and in the House, and am willing to do it again, that the remarkable thing was the length of time during which the present Government imposed rationing when the rest of the world was freed. It is certainly true of bacon. We were about the last country in the world to set bacon free. We are concerned with what the Government have done to reduce production and I was saying that they have succeeded remarkably well in that objective. We know that breeding in the sow population is falling drastically, and that there is a possibility that it may run down even to pre-war level. It is significant that, at the very same time, the corresponding figures in Denmark have increased 20 per cent. and are probably an all-time record. By means of this support, have we attained economic production? Certainly not. The present declared aim and objective of the right hon. Gentleman is to attain economic production.
However, the one bright feature of this rather gloomy record is the Pig Industry Development Authority. We wish all speed to its work, but we have to recognise that the Bosanquet Commission itself envisaged a 10-year development programme. This is essentially a long-term approach. We have to recognise, at the same time, that while we are concerned about the work which the Pig Authority is doing, we are also concerned about such things as capital investment. I am sick and tired of asking the right hon. Gentleman what he is doing about farm building research, and of getting the usual prevaricating replies.

On the question of disease, where the annual loss of livestock is running to £80 million, what sign have we of energetic action by the Government? The whole question of imported foodstuffs, which is a major production cost, is again one on which we cannot get any satisfactory reply. We want action. Without

it, we cannot deal with the economics of the industry. More important than anything is that if we want technical progress the industry has to be able to plan ahead with more security. That is a disturbing fact which has resulted from Government policy over the past few years; the industry has not had that security.

That applies particularly to the bacon side of the industry. I shall not pursue my rather arid discussions with the right hon. Gentleman about whether bacon factories are now employed to 60 per cent. of their capacity or whether, as the bacon curers say, the figure is 40 per cent. We know that the percentage, whatever it may be, will in all probability be drastically reduced within the next twelve months. The cutter and manufacturing markets will be particularly strong and the bacon factories will be in serious difficulties. They have a very bleak outlook.

I would not argue for a moment that the bacon factories have a prescriptive right to be kept fully occupied, but the Government a few years ago, encouraged bacon factories to increase their capacity, and, in view of that fact, have a special responsibility. We have to recognise equally that if the bacon curers are to reduce costs they must have an adequate throughout. The right hon. Gentleman cannot even seek consolation by turning to pork. I have just received a letter from one of the leading manufacturers demanding a radical reappraisal of the Government's pig policy. The result of all this is that we have this anxiety and a disturbing prospect for the pig industry. That is a development for which the Government must accept responsibility, but the responsibility goes rather further. The Government are responsible not only for the way in which they have carried out their policy of incentives and disincentives, but for not having done anything at all about marketing.

I would remind the Committee that when, in the House, we discussed the Pig Industry Development Authority my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley had the wisdom and the foresight to say that something would have to be done about marketing if we were to achieve anything like stability. We know the policy of the Government


—or absence of policy—because it was set out in the 1956 White Paper. I have complained before that I find it very difficult to follow the logic of Government reasoning. The Government say that the Reorganisation Commission rejected the case put forward by the producers. They say, further, that the producers disliked the proposals put forward by the Reorganisation Commission. Therefore, conclude the Government, we shall not do anything at all. What the Government failed to grasp, or for doctrinaire reasons failed to comprehend, is that the Bosanquet Commission, the producers and, in fact, almost everyone who gave evidence before the Commission, recognised that some steps had to be taken to provide more orderly marketing and a suitable throughput for the bacon factories.

I would not pretend for a moment that this is an easy problem. It is a very difficult one, the most difficult of all problems of agricultural marketing. We all know the difficulties of pigs going to three markets—bacon, manufacturing and pork—and we know that the pork market is affected by general meat prices, but because a thing is difficult that is no excuse for inaction. I have complained before of the present Minister calling in aid committees and advisers. Here we have the committees and advisers and admittedly, at the end of the day, there was a difficult problem to face, but all the right hon. Gentleman has done is to stick his head in the sand like an ostrich. The problem has still to be tackled.

The National Farmers' Union has taken an initiative. It has reviewed its proposal for an all-pig board under the marketing Acts. All that that evoked from the right hon. Gentleman was a tactless brush-off and the reaffirmation that his head is still in the sand. It is true that he retracted a little when I put a Question in the House. I should like to emphasise to the Committee the statesmanlike and reasonable way in which the N.F.U. acted. I would remind the Committee of what the Chairman of the N.F.U. Pigs Committee, Col. Wilson, said:
I think it would be a great mistake if we went forward with the promotion of such a board without the complete support and unanimity of the country as a whole.

Surely that was taking a very reasonable negotiating position. That ought to have evoked some response from the Government. Surely the Government ought to have realised that there are patently and obviously marketing difficulties, but the Government have done nothing and show no signs of doing anything.

It is equally true that any pig or livestock policy is conditioned by slaughterhouse policy. This is particularly true of pork. We know the importance of having more storage facilities available, but all we got was the renunciation of the previously declared policy of the Government in the Slaughterhouses Act. The Government made it a thousand times more difficult to deal with an already difficult marketing problem. In this situation, with the industry anxious and disturbed, and, at the same time, the Government showing no sign of taking any effective action, we got the announcement of the Anglo-Danish Agreement. I think that I can anticipate the right hon. Gentleman. He may call my attention to the fact that we opposed the 10 per cent. tariff on Danish bacon. We did, but I would remind him of the grounds on which we did so.

We said, in the first place, that it was wrongly timed. We felt that at the time when the Government had their jackets off, struggling against inflation, it was wrong to impose a tariff on foodstuffs. We also said—and this is particularly relevant in the present context—that this could not be a substitute for orderly marketing and we should get some undertaking from the Government first that they would tackle this essential problem. Finally, we said that they should not abandon our bulk purchase arrangements with Denmark. I think that everyone in the Government would accept that now. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If we had continued our bulk purchase contracts with Denmark we should have had an easy formula by which to negotiate with the Danes. We could have had a formula which would have provided all the safeguards that might have been required by producers.

Mr. John Hall: Will the hon. Member explain the formula to the Committee?

Mr. Willey: I do not want to pursue this at great length. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is a matter behind the whole of the Common Market negotiations about agriculture. It is generally agreed that in relation to the producer we can get much greater security both ways if we resort to bulk purchase agreements. What applies in relation to sugar in the West Indies and the sugar beet producers applies equally to the Danish and domestic bacon producers.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Is the hon. Member really suggesting that we should commit ourselves to long-term agreements with the Danes for the bulk purchase of bacon without the same sort of agreements with the Danes to commit themselves to the purchase of manufactured goods? Is that possible? He knows that it is impossible.

Mr. Willey: I would remind the hon. Member, as my right hon Friend reminded the House, that we had a £40 million adverse trade balance with the Danes. That is something which could be brought into account if we negotiated a bulk purchase agreement.
In the case of sugar, if we want to produce security both for the home producer and the importing producer, the best way to do so is by a long-term agreement. Once again, this should be clear enough. I am trying to carry the Committee with me as far as I can. The Anglo-Danish Agreement has been wrongly timed. The producers are complaining that they are being sold down the river, which I think is quite untrue, because they were well down the river before the Agreement was announced. This Agreement has not caused but aggravated the present depression in the industry. When the N.F.U. says that it has grave apprehension, when the Development Authority says it has anxiety, they are saying that against a background of apprehension and anxiety. This is no more than a final body blow and I believe that it has been a deliberate blow.
I remind the Committee once more of what the National Farmers' Union said at the time of the Price Review:
The Unions maintained that the disincentive to pig production had been excessive in recent years, and that the fall in production might quickly lead to the gap in our market

being filled by overseas suppliers. Once lost, this market would be difficult to regain.
The only difference this Agreement has made is that this market will not be difficult to regain, but the purpose of the Agreement is to make it impossible to regain it. I do not intend to discuss the Anglo-Danish Agreement. It will have to be discussed in a far wider context. We shall have to have far more information and to know what happens in the negotiations which are at present proceeding. My complaint is that the industry has not been consulted, that there has been no opportunity for discussion. In fact, I believe that it has been deliberately misled. No one can deny, whatever the merits of this Agreement, that it is a complete renunciation of all the previous Government statements about agriculture.

Hon. Members: Nonsense.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: I have been trying to follow the argument of the hon. Member most carefully. He said that pig producers had been sold down the river. Could he explain what protection the British farmer gets from a tariff? Surely the farmers' guaranteed price comes from the Exchequer and not from the tariff?

Mr. Willey: I should like to be in a position to offer solace to the hon. Member. I should like to be in a position to say that the Anglo-Danish Agreement was no more than a side payment of £6½ million to £7 million at the taxpayers' expense. There were some grounds for believing this, because we know that the policy of the Government before the war was to get reduced supplies at greater expense.
We cannot, however, come to that conclusion, however comforting it may be to the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball), who, I know, is rather doctrinaire in these matters, because we know the assurances which are written into the Agreement. We know that an undertaking has been given to the Danes that they will have a larger share of the British market and that subsidies must not be used to make nugatory the opportunity given to the Danes.
I now quote an authority which, I hope, hon. Members opposite will accept. The Lord Privy Seal, speaking in the House of Commons and not in his constituency, which is quite another


matter, said that any sacrifice certainly involved damage and that it would be wrong to say that no damage would be done. That is saying that it would be wrong now for the N.F.U. to believe that it would be difficult—

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Hare): The hon. Member has quoted my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal. Taken in context, my right hon. Friend was quite clearly referring to the damage to the taxpayer.

Mr. Willey: No, he was not. It is clear that he was referring to the damage to the producer. It is quite clear that the Agreement says that the increased opportunities in the United Kingdom market must not be frustrated by subsidies. The Government are right in saying that they are maintaining their present subsidy policy, but it is quite untrue to say now that that policy is not affected by the Anglo-Danish Agreement.
What I want to know, and what the industry wants to know, is the extent of the damage, What is the extent of the damage that the industry can now bear? We know that in the present year—these are official estimates—we shall have a shortfall of 1¼ to 1½ million pigs on the domestic market. It is only at the end of the year, when we have suffered this shortfall, that the Anglo-Danish Agreement comes into effect.

Mr. Thomas Williams: After the General Election.

Mr. Willey: As my right hon. Friend says, it will be after the election.
The Government have deliberately depressed pig production. They have drastically reduced production. At the end of the year, this will be the standard of production against which the concessions to the Danes are made. It is not surprising, therefore, that the industry should believe that the damage it will suffer will be substantial.
The industry knows well enough that the Agreement with the Danes makes it clear that the stabilising adjustment that we have got will provide only an alleviation and a slight help to the bacon industry. The industry is realistic enough to know that we cannot resort to the devices of separate guarantees for bacon pigs or grading and deadweight, because the Danes will say that this is

an evasion of the undertakings which they have been given.
It may be argued that there is scope for an increased market at the expense of other imports, but, again, we cannot accept this argument now. The other importer whom we had in mind was the Dutch, but for other reasons Dutch imports have fallen sharply in the past few months. What we are rather concerned about is the likely increase of imports. We are worried about the possibility of Commonwealth imports, particularly from Canada.
From every possible viewpoint, the announcement of the Agreement could not have come at a worse time. The Government took consolation that we had reached the bottom of the trough of the production cycle of pigs. It is at that moment that we get this announcement. Looking at the market returns for the past three weeks, it is clear that the announcement has served artificially to depress the trough even lower.
To sum up, it is undeniable that over the past few years the Government have deliberately taken steps to prejudice the pig industry. At the same time, through being either too doctrinaire or too negligent, they have not taken steps to provide any stability for the industry. Now, at the moment of its greatest weakness, we get the announcement of the Danish Agreement.
My indictment of the Government is this. After Exchequer support running to £326 million, a good deal of which has been used merely to mitigate the harmful effects of Government policy, the Government may now, in spite of this expenditure, reduce the industry to its pre-war level and certainly to its prewar unsettled condition. The root of this widespread deep anxiety is that we all know what happened to pigs and to the pig industries under the Tories before the war.

Mr. Nabarro: We get excellent bacon every morning for breakfast.

Sir Thomas Moore: And new-laid eggs.

Mr. Willey: In spite of the Agriculture Act, 1947, and in spite of even the Agriculture Act, 1957, we have the threat of that happening again. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) knows this as well


as I do. He is showing Dutch courage. When he is disturbed about something, he sits on his seat and tries to shout down whoever happens to have the Floor.

Mr. Nabarro: Mr. Nabarro rose—

Mr. Willey: No, I will not give way.
The real anxiety which disturbs the industry is that it remembers and is well aware of what happened before the war. It knows that it can happen again, in spite of the public investment in the industry and in spite of the safeguards of the 1947 and 1957 Acts. If that happens, it will be the betrayal of everything that my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley has stood for. More than that, it will be a profligate sacrifice of an enormous public investment in an essential basic agricultural industry.

Mr. Nabarro: Would the hon. Member not readily confess that the consumption of bacon during the last twelve months is four and a half times as great per head of the population as when the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) rationed it to an ounce and a half a week?

Mr. T. Williams: Was it not, and is it not, because the Government of 1945 did exactly the opposite to what the Government of 1919 did, when we set out to produce the bacon that the consumers are now consuming?

4.38 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Hare): The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has treated us to a speech which started with sweet reasonableness and then got wilder and wilder. The allegations which he has just made will certainly not do his own party much good. If they were listened to by the farming industry, they would do it great damage.
Before starting to deal with the hon. Gentleman, however, as I shall do with considerable pleasure, may I defy the rules of order by saying how much I wish to join with the hon. Gentleman in what he said about a very old friend of ours, the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). We were all very sad to read the news over the weekend that the next Parliament will not

see him among us. The whole of the House of Commons will miss him. We love his down-to-earth good sense—although I am not sure that it was being shown a few moments ago—his good humour and his kindliness. His love for agriculture has been of great service not only to his party, but to his country. We shall all deeply regret the departure of an old friend to agriculture.
I very much welcome the opportunity that the debate gives me to state categorically, once again, that the Government want to see a stable and efficient pig industry in this country. The announcement that the bacon tariff is to go has been used as an excuse by a few people and by one—I am glad to say not more than one—national newspaper for scaremongering. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North seems to have added his name to that number in a speech which can certainly only add confusion to the mind of the average farmer.
I realise that the hon. Gentleman had a very difficult task to perform because he was, as he admitted, in a dilemma about criticising our Agreement with Denmark for the removal of the tariff on bacon. Having listened to the hon. Gentleman's speech, I do not think that he got out of that dilemma very well. His excuses for his change of mind were that it was badly timed and that, anyhow, he preferred bulk buying. I will tell the hon. Gentleman straight away that we do not prefer bulk buying.
Like Agag, the hon. Gentleman trod very delicately. My researches show that, somehow or other, the hon. Gentleman managed to avoid voting on the introduction of the tariff. I regret to say that his right hon. Friend was dragged into the Lobby. So was the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion), but somehow or other the hon. Gentleman did not vote against the tariff, as the rest of his party did.
We should, at this stage, state in plain terms why, as a Government we reached this Agreement, because this is what has triggered off some of the irresponsible criticism. The first thing is to get this bilateral Agreement with Denmark into perspective. This arrangement will be part of the Agreement to establish a free trade area in Scandinavia, Switzerland, Austria and Portugal. I hope that at this


very moment that Agreement is being concluded in Stockholm. The Agreement holds out golden opportunities to Britain's traders to expand their exports.
The National Farmers' Union has gone on record as saying that it would not wish agriculture to be the cause of a breakdown. It realises, as do all reasonable people, that we in this country live by trade and that out of prosperity come the demand for high quality foodstuffs and—let us not forget it—the cash to pay guarantees to farmers. Let us make no bones about that. We are all in this together. I am certain that it would be irresponsible lightly to throw away this great prize. And in our judgment, without this Agreement with Denmark we should not have had this free trade area.
But we were determined that the price which had to be paid should fall not on pig producers, but on the taxpayer. I can say with absolute clarity that the removal of the tariff will not reduce the returns of pig producers in this country by a single penny. This is absolutely incontrovertible. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman took the line that he did.
Why was the National Farmers' Union concerned at the removal of the tariff? As I see it, it was concerned not at the direct effect, but at the risk that the Government in these new circumstances might cut the guaranteed price for pigs, either for the purpose of recouping the loss of revenue from the tariff or to guard against any possible fall in price arising from the tariff removal. We readily recognised that farmers were entitled to assurances in the clearest terms on those points. So my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said immediately that, in fixing guaranteed prices for pigs, no account would be taken of the loss of revenue from the tariff or—this is just as important—any fall in market price due to tariff removal. I do not think that anything could be clearer than that. The cost of this Agreement falls on the taxpayer, not the farmer.

Mr. Willey: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but this is important. Is he giving us a guarantee that there will be no further reduction of the guarantees already provided? Is he also giving us a guarantee that the

Danes will not export on to the British market at the expense of British producers?

Mr. Hare: I mean exactly what I said. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make my speech.
I will say this, in addition, on the point on which he tries to question me. Pig producers will receive the guaranteed price for every score of pigs they produce, whatever the market price. Even if bacon producers get slightly lower returns, which I do not think is likely except in the short run, this will be counterbalanced by the higher returns for pork producers. This is unarguable. I am, therefore, glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that point.
The hon. Gentleman turned then to the general problem of the effect of this on bacon producers. He tried to make out that the Government had been following a policy which he had strongly disapproved of in the last two years. He tried to suggest that if the bacon industry and bacon pig producers are left without some action—which he has not specified, for he did not make a constructive speech—they will be ruined. That is not true. It is not true that, when bacon prices fall, the result is a large permanent fall in returns to bacon pig producers. The guarantee system ensures that they are largely protected.
We had some experience, as the hon. Gentleman will remember perfectly well, very soon after I came to my present job in the early part of 1958. At the time I gather that I was considered to be very innocent when I said that the normal relationship of pork pig and bacon pig prices would be re-established in a few weeks, but, in fact, it happened. If the removal of the tariff should lead to a temporary drop in bacon pig returns, still, in a few weeks, things would straighten out, with the Exchequer taking the strain.
We must remember, also, that bacon pig producers have their special advantages. We introduced only this year separate stabilising limits to prevent their returns from falling drastically at any time. Out of the general money available for the pig subsidies £l½ million to £2 million go in special quality premiums to bacon pig producers.
The hon. Gentleman did not say much about bacon curers, but he brought them into his speech and I should like to say something about them. The removal of the tariff presents a challenge to them. In looking at the challenge, I would say, first, that we have to remember that the Danes can surely have no interest in smashing the bacon market in Britain. Their producers enjoy no guaranteed price as ours do, and if the market were to collapse it would be the Danish producers who would bear the brunt. I know that, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, their pig numbers are on the upward part of a pig cycle. But I am sure that the Danes will continue to study the market situation here through the Bacon Consultative Council, which has done such valuable work in exchanging information about market prospects, and will adjust their marketing policy to the situation here.
Secondly, the guarantees to pig producers sustain the supply of the curers' raw material. When the price of bacon falls, the curers are able to get their raw material cheaper.
In all this the only risk is that this scaremongering—the hon. Gentleman is the last scaremonger to speak on the subject—may frighten some specialist bacon producers out of production. On this point I do not think that there is any disagreement between the N.F.U., the bacon curers and the Government. We are all concerned to reassure farmers. Of course, if many farmers panic and go out of pigs, we shall lose our share of the market. But from what I have said I am sure it must be clear that that is not necessary. I really would like to see a halt to this defeatist talk that we cannot compete with the Danes. This is, as I have said, a challenge to our bacon curers. They are determined, I know, to see that British bacon enjoys a reputation as high as, if not higher than, Danish bacon.
As the Committee will have seen from the last Report of the Pig Industry Development Authority—PIDA; I am glad that the hon. Gentleman paid a tribute to it—a code of practice for bacon production has been worked out and introduced. I am informed by PIDA that curers representing 90 per cent. of the output of Wiltshire bacon have voluntarily accepted the code. That

shows how co-operative bacon curers have been in this first step towards a marking system for home produced bacon. PIDA and the curers are working hard on that, and want to make further progress. I am sure that it is the goal that we must reach.
In his speech the hon. Gentleman, among many rather wild things, talked about damage and wanted to know the extent of the damage that we were doing to the industry. I have dealt with that by saying that we have not done any damage to the industry. The hon. Gentleman has grossly misrepresented the facts.
The hon. Gentleman went on to make an attack on the Government's policy on pigs in the last few years, and I should like to say a word about that. The hon. Gentleman managed to imply that hon. Members opposite disapprove of the drop in pig numbers which has taken place since 1958. He suggested that they had dropped to desperately low levels and should be immediately increased. That was what I inferred from what he said.
Let us look at the facts. The hon Gentleman knows very well that in 1957 there was a sudden and substantial rise in pig breeding in this country which reached a peak in the spring of 1958. Given present costs of production and the market situation in this country, we had an embarrassing number of pigs. Since the spring of 1958 there has been a decline—a substantial decline—in pig breeding. It is about 20 per cent., and it has brought numbers back to the levels of 1955 and 1956. In 1958, the subsidy was running at the rate of about £40 million a year—33 per cent. of the market price—and it threatened to go higher. Therefore, we cut the price. I really believe that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, in responsible mood, would agree that any responsible Government would have done exactly what we did.
At the last Review, as a result of our action the subsidy had dropped to a rate of £20 million a year—only 17 per cent. of market price. So it was unnecessary to discourage production further, and we left the guaranteed price unchanged. That, I would remind the Committee, was a decision that was part of an agreed settlement with the National Farmers' Unions. Hon. Gentlemen opposite must be honest. They cannot pretend that last
spring they urged us to increase the guaranteed price so as to bring pig breeding back to its 1958 peak.
Since the spring the decline in pig breeding has been slowed down. The Committee may be interested to hear that a sample census in the first week of July showed—I have received the figures only today—that the decline appeared to have stopped. The estimated breeding herd rose by some 17,000 sows—5 per cent.; small, but interesting. I hope that the Committee will take note of it. I believe that if it were not for the scare talk that is going on this change in the trend might well have proved permanent.
There is talk of bacon factories being starved of pigs in the autumn. I admit frankly that, of course, there will be fewer pigs this autumn than in the past year. But I would remind the Committee that the bacon factories bought substantially more pigs in 1958 than in previous years, and made more bacon in the first half of 1959 than in the same period in either of the two previous years. Any decline would be from a relatively high level.
I have been asked by the hon. Gentleman what is the Government's attitude to the future of the pig industry. There is no economic reason why pig breeding should decline any further. The present guaranteed price—46s. 9d. a score—yields a profit to reasonably efficient farmers. We have already, in my view, come to the end of the adjustment set in train by the price cut in 1958. The only thing which could cause a further decline in pig breeding is a loss of confidence caused by the sort of talk that we have heard this afternoon.
I have already explained that the removal of the bacon tariff in two stages in 1960 and 1961 will not in any way hurt pig producers here. The assurance given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is quite clear and definite on that point. I was glad to see that the Convener of the Pigs Committee of the Scottish N.F.U. said:
Home producers would have to watch their step that they did not destroy their own bacon market by stopping production of pigs. The danger was in British pig producers taking cold feet.

These are his words—not mine—and I commend them to the Committee and to the farming industry.
Farmers can, I know, say, "You have promised not to cut the guaranteed price because of the tariff removal. But you could cut it for other reasons." I propose, therefore, to do something very unusual, because of this sense of alarm which has been aroused by irresponsible talk. Although what I propose to do is unusual, I believe that it to be justified in the uncertainties of the present situation. I hope that farmers throughout the country will listen carefully to what I am now going to say.
I want farmers to be quite clear about the Government's intention. We want to maintain pig production on an efficient basis. I can say now that we have decided that in the Annual Price Review next year the standard price for pigs will not be reduced, except for any adjustments which would follow automatically from the feedingstuffs formula, which could be either up or down. There is a precedent for doing this, which probably the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman will remember; my predecessor did this in 1956 in relation to the price of fat cattle at the 1957 Review.
I am not, of course, saying now what the price will be. That must be fixed after the Review, after taking account of everything, including the size of the herd, market prospects, changes in costs, and so forth. But I am giving a definite assurance, on behalf of the Government, that the price will not be reduced next year. That shows that the Government still want to see an efficient and effective pig industry in Britain. It means that farmers can have confidence in pigs. And it is my earnest hope that nothing will be said today which will be aimed at shaking that confidence.

Mr. Willey: The right hon. Gentleman has made a useful pre-General Election statement, which we treat as such, but surely he appreciates that what we are interested in is what is to happen after the Anglo-Danish Agreement comes into effect.

Mr. Hare: As for the hon. Gentleman talking about election speeches, of all the election speeches that I have ever heard his was the most blatant. If he and his right hon. and hon. Friends want to raise further points in the debate, I


am sure that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary would be delighted to make a short winding-up speech at the end of the debate.

Mr. T. Williams: I think that it will be as well for the industry and for the nation if we return to a calm atmosphere and try to ascertain the truth of the situation. Are we to understand the right hon. Gentleman to mean that at the next Price Review, which is six, seven or eight months ahead, there will be no reduction in the price of pigs under the 1957 Act, whatever may be the number of pigs next February or March when the February Review is taking place?

Mr. Hare: That is precisely what I have said.

5.2 p.m.

Mr. A. V. Hilton: I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) for initiating this debate on a subject which is of great concern to many of my constituents. I was a little disturbed by the hilarity from the benches opposite on this important matter. I notice that hon. Members opposite are still amused at this, but I think that if they were to come to my constituency and see the many empty piggeries which until a year or two ago were full to overflowing, they might take this matter rather more seriously.
I was pleased at the manner in which the Minister concluded his speech. I was also interested in what he said about his intention to bring stability to the pig industry. But I must confess that he has rather a strange way of trying to achieve stability amongst the people concerned with pig production. Neither side of the Committee can disagree about the reduction in the pig population during the last year or two. I have brought with me a number of the monthly statements issued by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food setting out quite plainly that during nearly every month for a year there has been this gradual decline in the pig industry. Particular mention is made nearly every month of the reduction in breeding sows. As my hon. Friend has reminded us, the reduction has assumed rather alarming proportions. It is something like 1¼ million or 1½ million or,

as the Minister himself said, some 20 per cent.
We who deal with farmers know that they are pretty shrewd business people, and the number of empty piggeries is not just an accident. The reason is that there is not nearly the security in the pig industry which the farmers would like. If there is a decline in the cattle trade, buildings which have been used for cattle can be used for pigs, but farmers cannot do the reverse. They cannot push cattle into piggeries. Therefore, many of them are standing empty at the moment. This is most noticeable on small farms, many of which I have in my constituency and in my county, although this applies also to some of the bigger farms. Only this weekend I was reminded of a farmer in my constituency, five miles from where I live, who for a number of years had had a turnover of 1,000 pigs a year who is now completely out of them.
However, I am more concerned with the small farmer, the man who has to work seven days a week to make a living. The big man can often take a chance and gamble with pigs, but the small man is not often in this position. So it is the small farmer who invariably gets hit the hardest when these trends appear in agriculture, as has happened recently in the pig industry. Hon. Members on either side of the Committee would be very reluctant to go into industry unless they were pretty sure of a safe return for the money which they invest. That is all that the small farmer is asking, that he should have a fair return for the money that he is investing in this industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North referred to the prewar days in agriculture. Quite recently I was reading a report on bankruptcy in this country, and I noticed that farmers were in the unenviable position of being at the top of the bankruptcy "league". Certainly in the 1920s and 1930s many thousands of farmers went that way. Of course, I am not suggesting that conditions have got to that pitch, but when we read these things we are certainly made to think.
This uncertainty in the pig industry has already had some effect on another aspect of agriculture. In the last ten or twelve years the industry has lost


some 150,000 regular farm workers. I am not suggesting that they were all engaged in the pig industry, but many of those who have been lost to agriculture had a lifetime's experience—thirty years or more—in agriculture. Only recently we discussed redundancy in another industry and the payment of compensation to workers who have lost their jobs.
I can say, and I speak with some authority as senior organiser of the National Union of Agricultural Workers in the senior arable county in the country, that already farm workers who become redundant are talking in terms of asking for compensation in the same way as compensation is proposed to be paid to workers in the cotton industry when their employment is no longer available. Our farm workers would far sooner be engaged in doing a really good job than be paid any sort of compensation for being redundant.
Of course, this decline in the pig population owing to the worsening position is all linked with the question of men having to leave the land because farmers, especially the small farmers, are unable to plan ahead. They ought to be able to make their plans in the same way as people in other industries.
I should like to add a word or two to what has already been said about the impending retirement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). He was in Norfolk two or three days ago and all the farmers in Norfolk, as, I suspect, in all parts of the country, have a genuine affection for him. Many of them like to refer to him as "Honest Tom" because they always considered when he was Minister of Agriculture that they would get a fair deal from him. Whether it was pigs or any other phase in agriculture they knew that they would get a fair deal with my right hon. Friend at the helm.
We have a limited amount of time at our disposal and I do not intend to delay the Committee, especially as it was only last week that we were talking about shorter speeches, a suggestion with which I agreed quite a lot. I repeat that I was pleased to hear the way in which the Minister finished his speech, but I appeal to him to see that farmers, especially those producing pigs, get a fair deal. I am anxious that those who have the

facilities to do so should be encouraged to produce pigs to the maximum by being given the stability which the Minister at the beginning of his speech said he favoured.

5.14 p.m.

Sir Anthony Hurd: I fully agree, of course, with the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton) when he reminds us that farmers always talk about the need for stability in the pig market. They yearn for stability, but the pig is the one creature on which many will always have a flutter. Some are always in and out of pigs. I have all my time stuck to them. Looking back over the past thirty years or so, we find that the pig is the product on which many a farmer likes to gamble, and he does not always have to hit the jackpot.
I was relieved by what my right hon. Friend said this afternoon. Quite frankly, I was not happy with the first statements made by Ministers about the proposal to make it possible for Denmark to come into the Outer Seven trading group. It seemed to me that there were too many negatives about the assurances which Ministers made, but this afternoon my right hon. Friend made it clear. Even if he did not, I would like to say now that we as a Conservative Party are determined that pig production will continue to play its full part in the economy of British farming. We have always stood for that and as a party we shall continue to stand for it. Ministers come and go and, even if my right hon. Friend did not use these actual words, I am sure that he has every sympathy with that point of view.
My right hon. Friend has made it quite clear this afternoon that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is a very important person in these discussions, is facing the fact that by inducing the Danes to come into this trade group he will not only forgo £6½ million a year in tariff revenue on Danish bacon, but that he is prepared to face an additional charge on the general fund of farm price guarantees which today are running at a total of £240 million a year. It may be that instead of pigs costing, as they are likely to do this year, £20 million they will cost £24 million or £25 million to make up the market price to the price guaranteed to farmers today and which my right hon. Friend says is going to be continued to be


guaranteed to the next Price Review which carries us through to 1961.
Ministers are facing the implications of the decisions which they are proposing to take in these trade discussions—a loss of £6½ million on the tariff and a possible further charge of £4 million or £5 million on taxpayers. I do not know what the figure will work out at, but, any way, it will be a charge to be borne in farm price guarantees. That satisfies me that Ministers are determined, as we as back benchers are determined, that the pig shall continue to play its proper part in farming.
I only wish that we could somehow instil this feeling of security and stability about which farmers always talk and about which the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) spoke, as did the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West. But how can we do that today in the particular circumstances of the moment when the Socialist Party and the Daily Express have made an unholy alliance to try to undermine the confidence of farmers in pigs?

Mr. Willey: The Tories.

Sir A. Hurd: How can we meet that point? If the removal of the tariff on Danish bacon were to have the effect that some people have feared, it will be the bacon factories that are hardest hit because they will not get level supplies of the right quality of pig. Would it be possible for us so to gear the price guarantee on pigs as to ensure that there is a special premium paid on the right type of pig supplied in regular, steady numbers to the bacon factories? That would mean the curer making a contract with the producer to supply grade A pigs and the producer would get an assured premium for doing so. I think it would be worth the curer's while to make some contribution to that end as well as the Government so that we could have a steady bacon industry and one which is continuing to produce better quality bacon.
I would only give the premium on the pig which is going to match the Danish pig that produces the bacon which so many people in this country like. Some of our bacon is just as good as the Danish, and some is not so good. It is a specialist job to produce that type of pig, and that is why I would like the premium paid on it.
If to this end the National Farmers' Union believes that a pig marketing scheme would be helpful and would enable its members to get together with the curers and with the people in the pork trade and in the manufacturing trade to develop markets which are today not fully expanded and to get a better sense of security and confidence in the industry, I would say to the N.F.U., "If you can get enough of your producers to agree that they want a marketing scheme "—and it comes within the four walls of the Marketing Act—" they should go ahead and do it."
Unless we are to have a complete out-and-out Socialist Government that will buy every pig and allocate it to a market, no Government could pretend to so manage the pig industry to satisfy all the people engaged in it. If the N.F.U. want a pig marketing scheme, I would say, "Go ahead and have one to see how you can work it. You may be able to sort the pig industry out better than we or the Socialist Government have been able to do."
I am not worried about the Anglo-Danish trade proposal. We have the right basic guarantee now reaffirmed and our pig industry can go ahead. I wish that it would go ahead with greater confidence and stability so that year by year we could feel that we were making the same progress with our pig business that we are making with our milk, beef and crop growing.

5.20 p.m.

Sir Leslie Plummer: The last words of the hon. Member for Newbury (Sir A. Hurd) will receive full agreement from this side of the House. That is what we are asking for—that the people in the pig industry shall enjoy a stability of their market and an assurance of their future to produce the sort of pigs that we want at economic rates. We agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely on this matter, but I do not think that the earlier part of his speech will find the same sort of applause from this side. The words that he uttered to the pig breeders were not very comforting. He said that there will always be a gamble in pigs and that people will always go in and out of the pig industry. But is not this the trouble with the pig industry? The Government


have made the pig industry such a gamble that it is an in-and-out business.

Sir A. Hard: That is nature.

Sir L. Plummer: Let us see whether it is nature. Is it not a fact that if we are to have high quality bacon pigs we shall get them from the man who pays serious attention to matters like progeny testing, feeding, housing—the man who studies the animal and takes his business as seriously as the dairyman. What often happens is that the man who comes in and out of the industry feeds badly, is responsible for developing swine fever, houses the pigs badly and is in the business only for a quick profit. That is the man who has been encouraged by the Government. Whether he will be discouraged, I do not know.
When the Minister took office, he was photographed in Norfolk holding up pigs the wrong way.

Mr. John Hare: That is very much a question of opinion. I stick to the belief that it was the right way up.

Sir L. Plummer: It may be the silly Suffolk way of doing it, but it is not the universal way. If some of the things which are now predicted for the pig farmer happen, no decent British pig will be photographed with the right hon. Gentleman because of the trouble he is bringing to the industry. I recognise that in this matter the right hon. Gentleman is innocent. He is doing what he has been told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is not the first time that a Chancellor has imposed upon a Minister of Agriculture a policy which he does not like, but certainly on this occasion he is imposing, for what he doubtless regards as perfectly good reasons, a policy which is harmful to the pig industry. However, I do not think that in exculpating the Minister in this form I shall give the impression that, until the Danish agreement was announced, everything was lovely in the pig industry. On the contrary, the falling figures show that there is—and has been—a good deal of disturbance and worry in the minds of pig producers.
I want to be brief and on this occasion I want to be as helpful as I possibly can. Apart from the Danish agreement, there are three influences which are

making it difficult for the pig producer and which are inhibiting our producing in this country the sort of pig that we should be producing in competition with the Danes. I recognise that the Danes are specialist producers and that they concentrate on the production of pigs, but their system of agriculture is entirely different from ours. Even their system in respect of some of their subsidies for agricultural products is different from ours.
I should like to put a few inhibiting factors to the Minister, not in order of importance, but as they occur to me. The first concerns the reduction in the pig population. In this matter, I think that the Government should make clear what they want. I presume that the Government wish that the pig population should be reduced considerably. We gathered this from the White Paper. Now the trend is to be reversed. If this is not so, I do not understand the argument of the Government. First, they say, "Look how well we have done. Agricultural production is up." Then they say, "Look how well we are doing. The pig population is down." Which is right? Do the Government want more pigs? Do they want the bacon farmer to have a bigger or smaller share of the market? The Government should make up their mind to let the farmer know what is required of him.
As a result of cuts in the subsidies, many people have given up the production of pigs. That is the first inhibiting factor. The second factor, one that goes on continually, is the association of the prices paid for pigs with the prices of feeding stuffs. This is an equation which the average pig farmer cannot understand. He cannot understand how it is that the price of feeding stuffs seems to remain fairly constant while there is a diminishing return based always on the at-port price of imported feeding stuffs. No doubt it is a calculation which is clear to the Treasury, but I do not believe that it is clear to the Parliamentary Secretary. It is certainly not clear to the pig farmer, who finds, on the whole, that the price he is paying the miller for his feeding stuffs does not show the sort of correlation in fall with the fall in price. It would be worth while making the situation clear. In any case, this is a bit of a hardship on the man who, following the advice and


request of the Government, is growing his own feeding stuffs and who finds that the situation, over which he has no control, makes the return on his pig production so difficult.
I should now like to turn to the question of grading. Are not we raising grading on bacon pigs to a ridiculous point, a point at which it is extremely difficult for people to breed pigs? I have some returns here relating to some pigs which I have sent to market in the last few weeks. I do not know why I should get for an AA pig—that is a pig shorter than 800 millimetres; I always say "centimetres", but I think that it should be millimetres—considerably less than for a pig over 800 millimetres. A pig of the same weight which is 790 millimetres compared with a litter brother or sister of 810 millimetres may bring in as much as 10s. less. I believe the reason for this is that the Treasury has so organised grading that it has made it a hidden cut in the subsidy. I should like to know from the Minister how many pigs can reach AA-plus grading in excess of 800 millimetres. We are reaching the situation of insisting that farmers shall try to get high grading figures at a time when it looks as though high grading figures will be absolutely uneconomic because of what will happen to the industry in the future.
Finally, I should like to say a few words about curing. The hon. Member for Newbury said that there was nothing wrong with the British pig and that we could produce pigs which are as good as those which the Danes produce. That is demonstrably true. What we have not been able to do is to produce the uniform cure which the Danes have produced.
Almost every bacon factory in this country has a different cure. Where I live in East Anglia we are surrounded by bacon factories, but one can never be sure, when sending pigs there, that exactly the same Wiltshire cure will be given. People go into the shop in the village where I live and ask for Danish bacon. They say that it is "always the same". It is not that the Danish pig is better but that the Dane has studied our market and our preferences, ensuring that in each district, week in and week out, there is bacon of the same cure. We have not been doing that.
There has been a move in this direction. The bacon factories have been waking up to the fact that there has been this brake on sales and an encouragement to the British housewife—even the wife of the British farmer—to ask for Danish bacon in preference to the British product. But the bacon factories can do the job properly only if they have a really reliable, viable throughput; they can do it only if their processes are working fairly well up to capacity and if those in charge are convinced that they will receive a steady flow of pigs from the farmers. Otherwise, they will not go to the trouble of seeing to it that there is no casualness in the curing in order to produce a piece of bacon which is competitive with the Danish product.
What chance is there of these things being done now? The Minister has reduced the bacon curing industry to a state where, if this were the coal industry or the steel industry, Opposition Members would be up in arms complaining about the fact that mines or factories were having to work to such low capacity figures. Unless something is done to reassure the farmer, there will be no real prospect of improvement. The Minister's speech can provide no basis for assurance because his speech guaranteeing that deficiency payments will continue to be made will be effective only so long as the Treasury permits it to be. If the subsidy rises to a figure which the Treasury does not like, it will be taken as an excuse for cutting it still further. This has been our experience in agriculture, in the production of eggs and in the production of other commodities. The Ministry must think more carefully and more clearly. It must regard the pig industry of the country not against the background of the Danish agreement but in the light of the insecurities to which it has been subject during the last three years.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. W. T. Aitken: I have in my constituency a bacon factory which is working to just under one-third of its normal capacity. Nobody can live in that part of the country for long without realising what a very important part the bacon factory plays in the pig industry. Bacon factories take only about one-third of the total pig production of the country, but they provide a stimulus


to breeding and the scientific development of the right kind of pig to an extent far greater than the other two-thirds of the industry, namely, the pork cutters and manufacturers, provide.
It has always seemed to me that the problem we now face is really one of imbalance. The pork cutters and manufacturers will take any kind of breed or any quality of pig, and they take it on a live weight basis. The imbalance between the pork side and the bacon side is one of the factors to which much more careful attention should be directed. The old Scots clergyman may have been right when he took the pig as the subject of his sermon and said,
Dearly beloved brethren, isn't it a sin, When we peel potatoes to thrown away the skin?
The skin feeds the pig, and the pig feeds you—
Dearly beloved brethren, isn't that true? 
It must certainly have been true of the pork pig, but the bacon producer is much more particular.
People generally just do not realise the amount of trouble and expense which a man has to bear if he wishes to go in for producing bacon pigs. His pig has to be sold on a dead weight and grade basis, and it is a very expensive animal to produce. One cannot blame the farmer who takes the easy way out. When the price the bacon factory is willing to pay does not suit him, he will go to the pork manufacturer. The bacon factory manager is in this dilemma, that, unless he can have the right numbers of pigs, he cannot pay an economic price and he cannot produce as good a quality as he would like to produce. The merry-go-round is such that the unfortunate bacon factory manager finds himself today in an almost impossible position.
I am not one who believes that the trouble in the industry is due to the removal of the tariff on bacon. The trouble started long before that. This is simply the last straw. The agonising screams from this particular camel are just as distressing as they would be if a ton weight had been thrown on its back. This has been proved to be so because, between 1954 and 1958, the Danes succeeded in increasing their sales to the British market by about 40,000 tons, with a tariff imposed against them in 1956, and the home market lost just about the same amount in that period.

The real malaise of the industry, therefore, does not arise from the removal of the tariff. Neither is it a new problem, a I think my right hon. Friend will agree.
I know from my experience, and anyone who has visited bacon factories in his constituency will know, that the bacon industry can and does deliver to specification, and it can and does deliver a very high quality product. But, again, if the factories do not have the right kind of pigs, they have to make do with what they can obtain and, as a result, the quality of the product goes down. I am absolutely certain that if a way could be devised, by some rearrangement of the subsidies, so that we could provide a regular throughput to the bacon factories, the bacon factories of the country would be only too willing to do what was necessary and would be quite capable or organising themselves so as to compete successfully with any foreign imports. But, to do this, they must have the right kind of pigs at the right kind of price, and the producer who enters upon the arduous and difficult business of producing the right kind of pig must have his proper return. These things cannot be done under the present system.
If the Ministry of Transport were to drive an arterial road right through the middle of Bury St. Edmunds, it would be expected to pay a substantial sum in compensation to the people damaged by that project, which would, presumably, be in the general interest. The same considerations, I think, have applied in the cotton industry. We are prepared to face very considerable expenditure to assist the cotton industry out of the difficult position in which it now is as a result of action by the British Government. My right hon. Friend has made some slightly reassuring noises today, but he really must give a much more specific undertaking to the bacon industry. It is the bacon industry which I am most concerned about in this debate.
The removal of the tariff is to this business at the present time really rather like waving a rope in front of somebody who is just about to have a hanging in the family. One or two more definite assurances are needed. My right hon. Friend should give the industry some idea of what really is the optimum pig population which is desirable, in the broad


economic interests of the industry. I should like to see him do that, and I believe that it could be done. Although I know that the Bosanquet Commission has committed itself against this, I consider that attention should be paid to improving the system by which the subsidy is now operated, particularly in regard to bacon pigs. I am quite sure that we could greatly help the bacon curing industry if we could devise, probably at very little cost, some method whereby we could stimulate the interest of the producer and induce him to send more pigs to the bacon factories on a regular basis. I believe that the Danes are a fairly reasonable lot to deal with. The Bacon Consultative Council, as the Minister said, has worked pretty well. I do not believe that the Danes would be entirely unreasonable about some degree of co-operation on the present state of the bacon market in this country.
We are bound to congratulate the Government on this Agreement with the Outer Seven members of O.E.E.C, but do not let us spoil it. It is only right and just to my mind, and very much in the interests of the community as a whole, that when the Government take action which is specifically injurious to an important industry, the community as a whole ought to share in relieving that industry of the unpleasant prospects before it.

5.41 p.m.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: I agree with much that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Aitken) has said, and particularly with his opening statement that the pig producing industry is closely linked to the bacon industry. I think I am correct in saying that one-third of the pigs produced in this country go to the bacon factories.
I am as concerned as the hon. Member is at the prospect of continuing the through-put for the bacon industry. If the factories are to continue in production they must have a reliable throughput, and I agree with both the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds and the hon. Member for Newbury (Sir A. Hurd) when they said that there ought to be some adjustment of the Price Review, to pay a somewhat higher premium for the bacon pig which has to be produced to a stringent specification.
The Minister assures us that the Government would not have reached agreement with the Danes if the British pig producers were not adequately protected by the guaranteed price. That is very nice to write and to say in this Committee, but my experience over the last two or three weeks in my constituency has been that Ministers' statements do not carry very much weight. I am told that the one-third of the pig production going for bacon could receive considerably less than the standard price over the year, while the remaining two-thirds could get more under the present arrangements.
Since April, 1959, the difference has been limited by a special stabilising adjustment calculation. The Minister spoke about this this afternoon. I am told that even this could still result in prices of bacon pigs being 14 per cent. lower on average than the prices of pigs for other purposes, while the Government's guarantee obligations would still be fulfilled. I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will say something about that when he comes to reply.
I am quite sure that the bacon factories in my constituency and the pig producers will want an answer to a statement of that kind. The Minister made great play with what he called scare-mongering statements, and I think that I am therefore justified in quoting to the Committee the statements of some responsible organisations in this country in recent weeks. The British Bacon Curers' Federation, on 19th June, said:
The Minister of Agriculture, it is true, has indicated that he recognised 'the importance of the Bacon Curing Industry in this Country', but unless drastic remedial Government action is taken this particular industry is heading straight for disaster.
I did not say that; that is what the Bacon Curers' Federation has said. To quote from the British Farmer of 27th June, a greatly respected correspondent. Laurence Easterbrook, said:
It seems to me, therefore (and I only hope I am wrong in this), that we are approaching a point where it will no longer make sense to exhort farmers to raise still further their standards of efficiency unless they are to be given a larger share of the home food market.
He continued:
When it comes to pigs, it seems even more like Alice in Wonderland. Here home production is 40 per cent. of our needs and steadily going down, with bacon factories half empty. Yet the powers-that-be can hardly conceal their delight.


That is what a responsible journalist said in the British Farmer, which, I believe, is the monthly organ of the National Farmers' Union.
This is what the National Farmers' Union said in a Press statement issued on 17th July, only a few days ago:
This Council expresses grave apprehension at the implications of the Government's recent Agreement with Denmark for the British pig-meat industry.
Later, it said:
It is estimated that even in the year 1959–60 there will be 1¼ to 1½ million fewer pigs slaughtered in the United Kingdom. Not only will this result in a loss of market for the home producer, but a switch from pig production to other commodities through lack of a proper incentive must increase the pressure on the markets for eggs and milk.
I do not accuse the National Farmers' Union of making a scaremongering statement, but that is what it said at the end of last week.
I represent a Cornish constituency in which the only two bacon factories of the county are situated. I have had great concern expressed to me during recent weeks by the bacon factory interests, the National Farmers' Union, Cornish Branch, and, indeed, by the trade union which organises the workers in the bacon factories. It seems to me that there must be some basic cause for concern by all these people who get their living out of the pig producing industry
As we all know, there is a farming trinity of production—pigs, milk and eggs. They are vastly important to the small farmers. It is all very well for the larger farmers, as the hon. Member for Newbury said, to have a flutter in pigs, but the small producer today cannot afford a flutter of this kind. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton) pointed out, bankruptcies are increasing and farmers head the list of business people who are bankrupt.

Mr. Walter H, Loveys: I think that in bankruptcy the farmers have- always come second to the builders, and the builders are still beating us at the moment.

Mr. Hayman: Cornwall is an area of high unemployment, and it seems to us in my constituency that we are fast returning to the position of the 1930's I know that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary laughs at me for saying that,

but as I reminded him in other debates this year, the production of broccoli and new potatoes, two of the main farming crops in West Cornwall, has dropped back to the pre-war level, although a few years ago it was at least double the prewar level and in the case of new potatoes much more than that.
The Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are the men mainly responsible for the uncertainty throughout the farming industry, and particularly in pig production and the bacon curing industry. The time has come for the Government to get out altogether and to give somebody else a chance to give security to the industry.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: May I begin by paying a compliment to the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams)? May I join my right hon. Friend in expressing the regret which we felt on hearing that the right hon. Member for Don Valley is to leave us at the end of this Parliament. I have had the privilege and honour of being here for fourteen years and of sharing the many different views which have been expressed by hon. Members on this side of the House on what has been done in agriculture, but it was with great sorrow that I read in the newspapers that the right hon. Gentleman does not intend to stand for Parliament again.
Two things in particular struck me in the speech of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman). First, in our discussion on the pig industry today I do not see any necessity to enter into the question of new potatoes and broccoli, but that leads me to the comment that whereas the horticultural side of agriculture is not guarded by the Agriculture Acts of 1947 and 1957, the pig industry is so guarded, and this makes it possible to secure for the pig producer a measure of protection, without a tariff, whereas in the horticulture industry the tariff plays the most important part possible.
The hon. Member also said that in his part of Cornwall any statement made by the Minister did not carry very much weight, and he then proceeded to ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for replies to certain questions and to ask the Minister to reinforce certain statements. I did not understand that.

Mr. Hayman: I said that up to now, at any rate, the Minister's statements in this controversy had carried little or no weight with the people concerned. I asked the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to consider the points made by the hon. Members for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Aitken) and Newbury (Sir A. Hurd) about some readjustment of prices for bacon pigs.

Mr. Marshall: The point is that the statements made by my right hon. Friend so far have not been statements which the hon. Member's constituents have liked, but that does not mean that no weight has been attached to them.
When I first read in the newspapers that these negotiations were taking place with Denmark, at the time we were trying to negotiate a Free Trade Area, I was very worried and anxious, and I wrote to the Minister and told him about it. I must admit that I was unhappy when I heard what had taken place. Again I told the Minister so. The point which was exercising my mind, however, was the future problems of the pig industry as a whole more than the ad valorem duty being reduced by 5 per cent. in one year and by another 5 per cent. in another year. As far as I could gather from the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), who opened the debate, his chief worry, too, was much more about the pig industry itself than about the effect of the ad valorem duty.
I believe that good may come from the reduction in the ad valorem duty in the Free Trade Area because this has focussed attention upon the pig industry and has revealed in the House as well as elsewhere the anxiety and the worry which is felt about the pig industry in general. My anxiety has been considerably relieved today, because one thing which agriculture as a whole has wanted more than anything else is a form of stability for as long a period as possible. Because of the action taken with Denmark a much longer period of stability will follow from the announcement made by my right hon. Friend this afternoon than the pig industry and agriculture generally has had for a very long time.

Mr. Harold Davies: A bankrupt may have complete stability but he has not much hope of existence.

Mr. Marshall: These references to bankruptcy are interesting, but those who live within areas concerned with agriculture and pig production do not share the views of hon. Members opposite that all these farmers are bankrupt.

Mr. Davies: I did not say that they were.

Mr. Marshall: I am dealing with those who are not bankrupt.
My right hon. Friend today said that in the Price Review of February, 1960, the price relationship in respect of pigs will not be altered from the present relationship other than to take account of the normal changes in the feedingstuffs prices. This announcement will give to the pig industry stability for a reasonable length of time which it has not had since the days when rationing was abolished and when abundance took the place of food shortages all over the world.
Not only do I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement but, like him, I trust that advantage of the present situation will not be taken by a number of people in trying to impress upon a certain part of the agricultural industry an anxiety which in fact does not exist. My right hon. Friend knows to what extent this situation has worried me and how anxious I was. I did not mince my words with him. Today, however, he has reassured me. I thank him for his statement, and I believe that the pig industry has a better future facing it than it had before the negotiations with Denmark.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. Harold Davies: This debate is short, and we want the pleasure of the Minister's reply. I will therefore not trespass too long on the time of the Committee in elaborating the points which I want to make. Two points of view have been put forward by hon. and right hon. Members opposite. First, we were told that the pig industry has always been a bit of a gamble. Next we were told that we shall have stability in the industry for the first time. We were told that there is still to be a gamble in the future and that this agreement, which will cost the Exchequer £6½ million, need not cause too much worry.
I am not concerned about the gambling aspect of the pig industry. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman), I am concerned about the small man who is not gambling but is earning his living and who is able to purchase from industry in the towns the goods which they produce because he has surplus money in his pocket.
In my constituency there are 1,400 farms of under 20 acres each. I do not know the exact percentage because I have not had time to work it out, although I could do so, but many of those farmers live on the pig industry, together with the production of eggs and milk. Not long ago they were encouraged to get a million pigs on their trotters. It is no good the Conservative Party pretending that they have not cold trotters over this. The arguments are very thin. Never mind all the election speeches, but there was that little song of an election in some of the speeches made this afternoon.
However, I am more concerned with the real stability of the small man who cannot get by if this pig industry is unhinged by this entire lack of policy and planning. First, the farmers were to get a million pigs on their trotters. They set about it. The little man built pigsties, poured capital into them. A good deal of that work was done on credit. Then suddenly he finds that he is no longer to get a return on his investment.
I was very grateful for the experienced explanation by my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer), who is in the pig industry, of the methematics of grading. One has to be almost a senior wrangler to understand the gradings in the pig industry at present; there are such shifts in it. The Minister himself has a charming face, and he is a charming gentleman. I remember the picture of him when the Government were advocating more pigs. There was a marvellous photograph of the Minister He stood there in all his glory with a little piglet hanging down from his hands. We shall have no piglets to hang down if the Minister goes on at this rate, with this lack of planning. Is the Minister answering me back? I have him on the hip now.
We can see that this Agreement has nothing at all to do with the economics

of pig farming, and it is in addition to a lack of real policy for both the international and the home trade. I do not want to go into all the dialectics of the Big Seven, the Outer Seven, the Inner Six, but I have my doubts about this.
There was a Written Answer by the Minister the other day from which can be seen all the ups and downs of the pig industry over the years. Because of the time factor, I will not go into all the details of that now, but I would advise the Committee to read them. I asked the Minister a Question to which I had a Written Answer on Friday. It was about pig subsidies. The Minister told me that the subsidies paid to the pig industry in the United Kingdom were approximately £37 million—that is a round figure, the exact figure is in HANSARD—in 1957 to 1958 and £21 million in 1958 to 1959.
I agree with the Minister in that I do not want us on this side of the Committee to pretend that we are going to pour money into agriculture when we are returned to power. That would be a gross exaggeration, and it would be grossly unfair, but I accuse the party opposite of sacrificing agriculture to the City of London and to big industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] It is no good hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite saying "rubbish". The entire economic history of Britain since the period of the Industrial Revolution illustrates the fact that, when it suits the party opposite, agriculture is pushed by the board, as it was in 1921, when that party caused more bankruptcies than anyone at any time. We will brook no more argument about that fact—and it happens to be a fact. That is why the Conservative Party, if it is not careful, will find itself losing the rural constituencies of Britain at the next election. I am annoying the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price). I am pleased.

Mr. David Price: If the hon. Member would give way he would learn the truth of the matter.

Mr. Davies: I shall be finishing in a minute.
I would say to hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the Committee that there are some sections of agriculture which we ought to try to keep out of party politics for the sake of the security


of the country. For too long, I think, British agriculture, especially among the very small farmers, has been an issue of party politics. I sincerely hope that we shall look at this question of British agriculture in an entirely new light in the next few years, and especially for the sake of the small farmers and the pig producers.

Mr. D. Marshall: From 1945 to 1950 there was no party issue, and the hon. Member's party was in the Government and we were in opposition.

Mr. Davies: I will leave the argument there, because I must not trespass on the time of the Committee to reply to the hon. Member. It would be unfair to the Committee. I am glad that from this side of the Committee I have got the party opposite to see some of the truths of the matter.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): Mr. Champion.

Mr. D. Price: On a point of order, Sir Gordon. In view of the fact that the debate did not start until a quarter past four, would it be possible to have another half hour for it, in view of the further fact that there are a number of hon. Members who want to speak and who have contributions to make from both sides of the Committee?

The Deputy-Chairman: It is a matter for the Committee, but I understand that arrangements have been made through the usual channels.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Champion: I am delighted to learn that there are so many who wish to participate in the debate. Unfortunately, the intervention of the Prime Minister at half past three with questions until after four o'clock has inevitably shortened this debate—

Mr. Harold Davies: Yes, we have lost half an hour.

Mr. Champion: —on this most important industry. However, we are glad to have this debate because it has, if nothing else, enabled the Minister to make a statement, a statement which has been accepted by some of his hon. Friends as completely satisfactory. I would say that his actual words must

be studied most carefully, because we have had so many statements recently and so many conflicting statements on this whole business of pigs and pig policy. It has to be remembered, of course, that the Minister's statement that he will not reduce prices at the next Price Review must be taken in the light of the fact that by then the Danish Agreement will not be in operation. We shall not by then have felt any of its effects and the Minister will not be able to offset them or be able to do anything about its effects. All he is saying is that he will not in the next Annual Price Review reduce the present prices. That is not a really satisfactory statement at all, but, as I say, we shall carefully study what the Minister has said.
Despite the brave show which the Minister tried to put on, the fact is that this industry has during eight years been taken for a ride by the Tories—not in a Rolls Royce which the Tories normally use, but in an old T model Ford, a model with flat tyres on it, a Ford taken over a bumpy road, the driver, the Government, accelerating violently and then braking just as violently. The result is that the industry today has arrived at a point where it is shaken, where it is bruised, confused and despondent. It is not a bit of good the Minister saying that this is because of any words of the Opposition. The Minister said that we were trying to raise a scare, but what the pig producers and curers are worried about are the Tory policies, and not our words.
We all know the basic facts of the industry and the ease with which output is expanded and then contracted. We know, too, what were the conditions which existed before 1945, the conditions of the inter-war years, and we have to remember those facts and the conditions which we sought to end by the 1947 Act and the policies which we produced from 1945 to 1951. We did not want pigs to return to a state where they were "muck or money", "copper or gold". as was the case always up to that date.
What happened when this Government came in? "More pigs", cried the Minister of Agriculture in 1952. "Expand pig production", said the Annual Review of that year. They forgot to make adequate provision for the curing and marketing of the increased


numbers of pigs which came along These are the facts of the industry at that time. They gave the green light to the industry, and as a result of that green light the industry immediately began to expand, and the result was that we had a chaotic condition created in the industry which was well described by the Bosanquet Committee.
Those Members who have read the Report of that Committee will remember its condemnation, which underlay the whole of the Bosanquet Committee's Report, of price fluctuations. Hon. Members will remember what the Committee said about the industry at that time, how prices fluctuated, how the numbers going through the bacon-curing factories fluctuated between 40,000 and 238,000 per week.
These were the facts, and in this chaotic situation which had been created by Government policy we had the Government's decision to end the controlled import of foreign pig products, to free imports and to apply a duty of 10 per cent ad valorem. I remember it because I participated in the debate. Then the right hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Sir T. Low), the then Minister of State, Board of Trade, when he introduced that Measure, said:
Now a word about policy considerations. It has long been our policy in relation to pigmeat production to secure, first, development of home production and, secondly, to give preferential treatment to Commonwealth producers. The Ottawa Agreements provided for this by the use of quotas on foreign imports of bacon and ham and pork. During the war and since, throughout State trading, the quota system has been in suspense. With the end of State trading we had to consider how we should achieve the same purpose, that is the home producer first and the Commonwealth producer preferred to the foreigner. The alternatives before us were quota or tariff preferences.
Later, the right hon. Gentleman said:
From the producer's point of view, the tariff protects him and provides a way of avoiding violent fluctuation in market conditions … from the taxpayer's point of view, the tariff provides revenue."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th July, 1956; Vol. 556, c. 1535–6.]
The main consideration, said the right hon. Gentleman, was to protect the producer from violent market fluctuation. The revenue was only a secondary consideration.
Now, the present Minister of Agriculture tells the N.F.U. that

The tariff on bacon was introduced in 1956 primarily for the sake of the revenue that it would bring in.
The purpose of the tariff has been entirely reversed. It was one story when the tariff was introduced, and now it is another story in 1959 when it is coming off. This is typical of the Government's actions, particularly in relation to the agricultural industry.
The year 1957 was the first year of the tariff arrangement, and that was a particularly bad year for the pig industry. The right hon. Member for Blackpool, North said, in effect, that things would be better after the Order applying the tariff had been passed, but nothing of the sort happened. In January, 1957, the price of No. 1 English bacon was 328s. per cwt. In March it was down to 247s. In July, it went up to 314s. but dropped in August to 256s., recovering to 293s. in September and falling in October to 227s., which was the lowest price since 1955.
Is it any wonder that in these conditions pig producers were confused so that total marketings were sharply reduced and the pork market was easily able to absorb available supplies, and then a sharp increase in August and September brought about an over-supply to the bacon market? The year 1957, instead of being what we had been promised by the Government—a year of stability under the protection of the tariff—was a year of violent fluctuations in price, with the result that the industry was thoroughly unstable during that period.
The producers themselves had to do something about it, and the National Farmers' Union took action. As a result of their direct approaches to the Danes and the Dutch, the Bacon Consultative Council was formed, which was afterwards joined by the Swedes and the Southern Ireland producers. They entered into an agreement which worked reasonably well. I thank the producers and the N.F.U. for their action in that connection.
The Minister of Agriculture today uttered a few words of praise, but we should not forget that now into this arena is thrown the latest agreement with Denmark. How many of those who are associated with this Council have the faintest notion of what will now happen


as a result of the Danish agreement and its effect on this Council which came into being and produced something like order in the industry?
This, coming on top of eight years of Tory disaster, has naturally made the industry apprehensive. The Minister seeks to allay the industry's natural fears and says, in effect, that the Annual Review will be used to ensure reasonable prosperity to the industry. But this debate has pulled a little more than that out of the Minister.
The Minister and the Government say to the Danes, and here I quote the background notes issued by the Minister of Agriculture:
The Danish Government has asked for and received an undertaking from the British Government that nothing will be done by way of changes in subsidy policy which would take away the benefits which they will obtain from the abolition of the bacon tariff. This, however, will not prevent the British Government, in fixing pig prices at the Annual Review, from taking into account changes of cost and other relevant factors.
How can both these groups of people be satisfied? The Minister is uttering a nice tale to the Danes and an entirely different one to the pig industry in this country. There is one soporific for the Danes, and another for the pig producers here.

Mr. J. Hare: The same sentiments are expressed in the document agreed between us which says:
United Kingdom Ministers reserved their right to determine annually the guaranteed prices for pigs, with due regard inter alia to changes in costs.
That was agreed with the Danes.

Mr. Champion: Yes, I read all that, of course, before I prepared my speech, but I ask the right hon. Gentleman how he can bring these two into unity and into a whole. How can he give these promises and carry them out in the circumstances now developing?
The Government seem to have no idea of what the effect of their actions will be. The Chancellor does not know, or so he said in the House on 9th July:
One cannot say what the consequences of a reduction in tariff would be. What is certain is that the Exchequer will lose £6½ million, but it is impossible to say at this stage whether the effect will be that the Danish importers will secure a higher price for the quantity they at present import or will obtain a figure volume at a lower price."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1959; Vol. 608, c. 1572.]

The right hon. Gentleman went on to try to assure pig producers that the market for bacon and ham is a nice elastic thing, but the producers who really know something about this industry say that statistical analysis over the last two years confirms that the demand for bacon has been relatively inelastic. I prefer to accept the opinion of the knowledgeable members of the Pigs Committee of the National Farmers' Union to that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
In these circumstances, is it any wonder that producers are bewildered and frightened when they are faced with conflicting statements by the Government? I have read them all, and I must say that the most honest one of the lot has been that made by the Lord Privy Seal. Whatever the Minister of Agriculture might say about the fact that he was discussing the £6½ million, he was doing nothing of the sort. If hon. Members will read his reply to the question in the context of that question, they will see that he was talking about the anxiety which would be brought to the industry itself.
I am sorry that I have had to speak with such speed on a matter of such vital importance. I promised the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to sit down in ten minutes, I hope I have carried out my promise, but I believe, Sir Gordon, that this industry has had a shocking deal from the Government.

6.20 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): I am glad to have an opportunity of replying to the debate, if only briefly, and I say at once how sorry I am that some of my hon. Friends who wished to take part in the debate have not been able to do so.

Commander J. W. Maitland: We should have had more time.

Mr. Godber: I will start, as did my right hon. Friend, by paying my own tribute to the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). I am sure he does not wish me to elaborate that, but it is none the less sincere. As to the rest of the debate, I do not propose to deal further with the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). I think we can leave him to stew in his


own juice since my right hon. Friend dealt with him earlier today.
I shall seek to deal with one or two of the other interventions. First, I will deal with the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion), who has been seeking to wind up the debate for the Opposition. The hon. Gentleman took the opportunity of quoting several extracts. I was rather surprised at his audacity, I might almost say his daring, in quoting from the debate of 19th July, 1956, in which he participated. I was sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not remind us of some of the things he said. I know he is a bashful man, so I will quote briefly one thing he said. I wish I had time to quote more. Just before he sat down the hon. Gentleman said that subsequent to the tariff going on, prices had fallen away. The hon. Gentleman quoted prices for bacon which had dropped sharply shortly afterwards. Therefore, it is interesting to see that in the debate he said:
Certainly, no advantage will accrue to the farmer to compensate in any way for the fact that by this Order the Government are tonight adding another item to the list of foods the prices of which have been deliberately raised this year by this Government.
That does not tie up with what he was saying a few minutes ago about the price having fallen heavily. He said earlier:
I disagree entirely … that there might be a compensating advantage to the British pig producer. I cannot see that anything of the sort is likely to happen."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th July, 1956; Vol. 556, c. 1538.]
If hon. Gentlemen really feel that, why should they be fussed about the removal of the tariff? There are other gems, but I have not time to quote them.
This debate has suffered from the difficulty that there are two items here which have become interwoven. On the one hand, there is the question of the level of profitability of pig production in this country; on the other hand, there is the Danish Agreement. That agreement cannot in any way be held to be responsible for any of the criticisms that have been raised about the present position of the pig industry. If hon. Gentlemen opposite felt so strongly about its position, why did they not initiate a debate immediately after the Price Review?

Mr. Harold Davies: That is an old story.

Mr. Godber: No, it is true. If, in fact, they had any feelings of that kind, they would have done so. As the Committee will realise, hon. Gentlemen opposite are trying to mingle the two things, and they are trying to cash in on the feeling of discontent which they feel might be built up among farmers as a result of the agreement. They do not want to appear to be opposed wholly to an agreement which I think they realise in their hearts must be for the good of the country as a whole, but they are trying to mingle the two things which, however, are separate and distinct.
Our views on the position of the pig industry have been made abundantly clear over the last few years in our Price Review White Papers. They were set out clearly in the 1958 White Paper and again in the 1959 White Paper. In the former, because we were faced with a heavy increase in production, we said that production must be reduced and we reduced the guaranteed price accordingly. In this year's White Paper we said that there must be a continued reduction in the cost of the production of pig meat and that further efforts to satisfy the market requirements were necessary. We have been absolutely clear in the advice we have given to producers on the production of pigs, and we have tried, as far as we can, to even out variations. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir A. Hurd) rightly said, there is bound to be a certain amount of variation in a commodity of this kind where it is so easy to go in and out of production.
The hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) asked me a question in relation to the back length of pigs. He seemed aggrieved that his own percent age of these high grade pigs was not high. He asked what were the figures—

Sir L. Plummer: My own figures are over 80 per cent., which are way above the average. I am not worried for myself but for other farmers.

Mr. Godber: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman. I thought he was complaining of his own figures, because he said he produced his own pigs. However, I am glad that he has been able to make clear his pre-eminent position in the pig world.
As regards the national figures, the latest one I have been able to get is for the week commencing 15th June, when over 50 per cent. were in the A.A. grade, which is satisfactory. Although not up to the hon. Gentleman's level, it is not an unreasonable figure. It is an indication that the introduction of these high quality premiums has had a marked effect on the production trends of bacon pigs in this country. However, this is a matter which the P.I.D.A. is looking at all the time and there are no hard and fast views on it.

Commander Maitland: Can my hon. Friend assure us that it is not the intention of the Government to stabilise the national pig herds or the pig population at the present level, but that it is their intention to endeavour to have a larger pig herd than we have at present?

Mr. Godber: If my hon. and gallant Friend will study what my right hon. Friend said in his speech this afternoon I think he will find that the position has been made abundantly clear. I am sure that my right hon. Friend's statement that the guaranteed price will not be reduced at the next Price Review will have its effect in restoring confidence in the industry.
In relation to the Danish Agreement and to the abolition of the duty on bacon, it is fair to remember that it was not only hon. Gentlemen opposite who placed little value on it when it was introduced in 1956. It is worth recalling what the National Farmers' Union said on 28th February, 1956, after the announcement of the imposition of the duty. It was as follows:
It is impossible to say whether or to what extent consumer prices of bacon will rise as a result of the imposition of an import duty of 10 per cent. The duty can however, have no direct effect on the price guaranteed to producers, which is determined annually in the light of the price review.
That was the view of the N.F.U. at that time, and that is the view of the Gov-

ernment at this time. There is no difference. If those arguments were correct when the duty was imposed, they are equally correct when it is removed.
There were many other matters raised by hon. Members which I would wish to have dealt with, but the time is very limited. I will conclude by saying that the debate will, I believe, prove useful, short though it has been, in that it has cleared the air and because it will be shown how groundless are the fears expressed about the future of pig production in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If hon. Gentlemen opposite seek to stimulate those fears and to profit by them, they are doing a great disservice to the industry. Certainly it has been shown convincingly that the Agreement with Denmark has in no way reduced the profitability of pig production in this country, nor will it have such an effect. The successful conclusion of a Free Trade Area of the Seven countries will bring benefits to the community as a whole, and it is the community as a whole who, as taxpayers, will foot the bill for the agreement.
Farmers can, therefore, go forward with confidence that the guarantees they enjoy for pigs, as for other commodities, are still fully effective and have been reinforced by the very important statement made by my right hon. Friend this afternoon. The guarantees provided under the 1947 and 1957 Agriculture Acts remain their real safeguard. Farmers will see through the bogus concern shown by hon. Members opposite today, and will realise where their true support lies.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £165,518,079, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for expenditure in respect of the Services included in the Civil Estimates.

CLASS VI

VOTE 9 (MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND NATIONAL SERVICE)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £14,379,000 (including a Supplementary sum of £20,000), be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Labour and National Service, including expenses in connection with employment exchanges and the inspection of factories; expenses, including grants and loans, in connection with employment services, training, transfer, rehabilitation and resettlement; a grant in aid of the Industrial Training Council; expenses in connection with national service; repayment of loan charges in respect of employment schemes; expenses of the Industrial Court; a subscription to the International Labour Organisation; and sundry other services. [£7,176,000 has been voted on account.]

EMPLOYMENT (DISABLED PERSONS)

6.31 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Robens: We turn now to an entirely different debate. Of the previous debate I heard only the winding-up speech, but I am sure that before the House rises none of us will regret the opportunity to discuss a problem very serious in any civilised country such as this—the problem of disabled persons. I suppose that we can claim that we probably do more for our disabled persons than does any other country in the world. It is right that we should, and it is right that we should extend our work so as to do our best to bring this class back into the normal pattern of industry.
First, it is useful to look at the size of the present problem. When we do that, we see with some relief that the number of those registered as disabled persons has fallen over the years. Nevertheless, in April, 1959, there were still some 715,800 of them—we may get later figures from the Parliamentary Secretary. The fact that there is that reduction in the registered number is a very good sign, but at the same time we have to remember that, of those, 59,671 are unemployed.
It is obvious that if there is a difficult employment situation generally, the disabled person has a more difficult time than when unemployment is negligible. We have passed through a phase of a recession that is now beginning to move

the other way, and it may well be that as the general employment situation continues to improve the number of unemployed disabled persons will be reduced.
Of the 59,671 unemployed disabled persons, 55,470 are said to be suitable for ordinary employment but the other 4,000-odd require very special conditions of employment. Therefore, we must apply ourselves to these two factors—the number of disabled persons suitable for ordinary employment, and the much smaller number for whom special provision must be made—and discuss what we can do in respect of both groups.
We have two main tasks. The first is to ensure—or to discover how to ensure—that industry takes a proper quota of the disabled persons who are able to do a normal job. I assume this to be completely a Ministry responsibility. The second task is to find out what facilities are available to permit those people with severe disabilities to earn their living, whether in ordinary jobs in competitive employment, in sheltered workshops or in some special work.
When we consider how to ensure that industry takes its proper quota of disabled persons, we have to see whether or not the quota system is still working as effectively today as it did some years ago. By the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944, any employer employing twenty or more employees is required to take a quota of about 3 per cent. of disabled persons, and the Ministry has inspectors who make a number of inspections to make sure that this 3 per cent. quota is maintained.
There are available some most interesting figures from which we can draw a lesson. In 1954, there were 6,019 quota inspections, and in 1957 the number had dropped to 3,966. One would assume that the reason for that drop was that the number of jobs required for disabled persons had lessened or that, with the growth of the number of people in civil employment, more disabled had secured jobs, but the survey contained in the Ministry's 1958 Report shows that whilst the labour force in those firms covered by the quota provision rose from 14,200,000 to 14,800,000, the number of disabled persons had gone down from some 480,000 to 476,000.
That is a very bad trend, particularly when the Ministry of Labour figures indicate that there are still over 55,000 disabled people available for ordinary employment. The proportion of disabled persons employed by those firms covered by the quota has gone down from about 3·4 per cent. to about 3·2 per cent., although in this period there has been an increase of 600,000 in the labour force of those firms.
Has this reduction in the number of employed disabled persons anything to do with the lessening of the number of inspections? Is it a coincidence that as the number of inspections has dropped from 6,000-odd to just over 3,900 the number of disabled people employed by these firms covered by the quota has fallen, or is it that the inspections have diminished because the number of disabled persons employed under the quota system has also diminished?
I would ask the Minister to consult those responsible in the Department for dealing with these inspections in order to find out whether or not this is a pointer to the need for additional inspections. I know the tremendous amount of work that is placed on the inspectorate department in the Ministry—we are always asking for more inspection of factories and the like—but I think that there is a relationship between the number of inpections and the number of disabled people employed under the quota system.
I urge the Minister to make every endeavour to increase that number to its former size and to ensure that the number of inspections is maintained and, if it is found to be worth while, to make a special effort in one year to increase it. That is a direct responsibility over which the Minister has full control.
I want now to consider what the Government themselves do as employers. Again, the record is not something about which we can be too proud. In 1954, 5·5 per cent. of the total staffs of the Government were disabled people. The figure has gone down slightly through the years, until, in the figures published in the Annual Report for 1958, it had reached 4·7 per cent. It is true that even 4·7 per cent. is well over the quota expected of private employers, but it is a distinct drop on the 5·5 per cent. which had obtained earlier.
Why cannot that figure of 5·5 per cent. be maintained? Presumably, in 1954, Government employing Departments were doing their best to employ as many disabled people as possible, but surely the figure could have been maintained at round about 5 per cent. and not allowed to fall as it has done consistently year by year. It may well be that next year's figures, relating to this present year, will be even lower than that 4·7 per cent. At least there is a trend in that direction. "Laxity" is the wrong word, but the employment of disabled persons does not seem to get that attention in Government employing Departments which it had in the years immediately after the war, when there was a great push towards getting ex-Service disabled persons in particular into employment.
It may well be that we need only bring these facts to the attention of those responsible for the figure to go back to 5 per cent. or even 6 per cent., which it would be simple for Government Departments to bring about. If we are to urge private employers to employ a rather greater proportion of disabled persons, the Government must at least set a good example by not reducing the numbers they employ and by even increasing the number. At least the figure must be maintained at that which we reached in 1954.
In connection with this task, there is the work of the special officers in placing disabled persons in employment. Here again, one sees a diminution not in the work of resettlement officers, but in the success attending their efforts. Ministry placings of disabled persons in ordinary employment in 1954 were 115,613, and by 1958 that number had decreased to 61,268. That is a very serious drop.
There is a placing side to the work of resettlement officers, the placing of disabled persons in employment in special conditions. That is much more difficult than placing disabled people who may be able to do a job with only a little assistance. In 1955, 420 such people were placed and in 1956 the number was 988. By 1957 it had gone up to 1,067 and those of us interested in the problem felt that a major effort was being made and that most of the difficult cases were being placed satisfactorily. We were keenly disappointed when in 1958 the


figure fell to 842, a drop from 1,067 in twelve months.
There must be a reason for that fall. Is it that there is a serious limitation on the number of places available for the employment of people as badly disabled as those of whom I am now speaking, or is it the case that the emphasis has gone from this sort of work? The figures I have been giving all seem to indicate that there was a great push in 1954 to do all that was possible in placing disabled persons who could go into ordinary jobs, and also to make a special effort for those who had to be placed in employment in special conditions.
The Piercy Committee had commenced its labours at about that time and it reported in 1956, so that this effort coincided with the work of the Committee. Was that coincidence in itself sufficient to create the impetus within the Ministry which made the administration concentrate upon this special task, with the resulting figures of this kind?
We all know that, whether in the manning of industry in war time or in finding workers for industries badly short of workers in peace time, as soon as the Ministry decides administratively to concentrate upon a particular task of placing, it makes a splendid job of it and is highly successful. I cannot help but come to the conclusion that there was an effort in 1954 and that it was stimulated by the setting up of the Piercy Committee and the general interest of the Minister and his predecessors.
I am not placing any blame on anybody, but the impetus has somehow lessened, and as a result the figures are more and more disappointing year after year. The direction should be reversed as soon as possible. I believe that it can be reversed if an impetus such as that given in 1954 is given to the sort of services which the Ministry is now able to give.
I come to three conclusions in relation to this part of what I have to say. First, we should have an inquiry into the quota system. Secondly, the Government services should get back to employing the percentage of disabled people which they formerly employed. Thirdly, there must be an especial effort in the task of resettlement of which I have just been speaking.
I do not want to take too long, but this is the sort of subject on which one is tempted to speak for a long time, as one easily could, since a very important and human problem is involved. I want now to deal with the sort of facilities which are available for training and enabling severely disabled persons to earn. This is one of the most important tasks confronting the Ministry in this work. There is nothing worse than a disabled person being in full possession of his mental faculties and yet finding himself unable to do anything to make any contribution towards earning his own living. It has nothing to do with money. It has much more to do with the psychological effect on an individual who is so badly handicapped that he has to rely on every single person round him for his complete maintenance.
If we had to face a situation where nothing could be done for our disabled people, we could only appeal to the Government to provide more money so that these people could be kept in some degree of comfort and happiness. But that is not the case. While it is sadly and tragically true that nothing can be done for a proportion of seriously disabled persons, it is surprising that a vast number of disabled people, even those who at first sight appear to have no hope in relation to training, can, provided they receive care and attention, and the right kind of training is available, be trained to earn a living, or part of a living.
It may well be that they cannot be trained to enter into open competitive employment, but they can be trained to enter sheltered employment. The problem therefore divides itself into two again. Having done the training, and if it is training that has enabled a disabled person to go into open employment, it is a resettlement job for the Ministry. If after training it is a question of finding sheltered employment, we must make sure that there is enough sheltered employment to take all the people who can be retrained.
Our main purpose in training anyone should be to resettle him in open employment. That is by far the best thing to do. Having done our best in that direction, we are bound to face the fact that a good deal of our training will necessarily be to equip disabled people


who will be able to enter sheltered employment only.
We are supposed to indicate our interest when we are speaking in the Committee, and I now make known my own interest. I happen to be a governor of the Queen Elizabeth Training College for the disabled. As chairman of its training committee, I have had opportunities for looking at the training of those who come under the care of the college. I have a good deal of practical experience not only in watching the trainees at work and being trained, but in seeing the kind of disabled person who is capable of being trained.
My admiration for those who work at the college increases each time I go there. I see people whom I should have thought were quite incapable of being trained being painfully, slowly, but carefully trained and turned out to find employment in the open market.
I was looking at a Ministry Report the other day which showed that 90 per cent. of the people passing through the college on three- or six-month courses have found jobs. The work of training disabled persons is not a task which ought necessarily to be taken on solely by the Government. In this country there is a vast army of men and women only too anxious to render services to humanity whenever they possibly can. This voluntary service is something that we ought to encourage. What we need are more colleges like the Queen Elizabeth College and others. They ought not to have to work on a shoestring.
I know that the Minister is not in a position to say, "I am prepared to provide more money for training under certain circumstances", because he has the Treasury to deal with and this is not one of the first things in the queue, but to my mind it is a wise use of public money to enable disabled persons to begin to live again by training them and enabling them to earn their own living and to take their place in normal society. No money could be spent to better advantage than on the rehabilitation of a human being. The Minister would be doing a great service if he once again looked at the arrangements made for the financing of both training colleges and sheltered industries.
I have read with some interest the Annual Report of Remploy. Time does not permit me to go through this Report and to make some comments about Remploy, but it is doing valuable work. It employs 6,000 severely disabled persons a year, though perhaps the figure is held artificially at that level. Many of us feel that Remploy could be extended, but I know that there has been this averaging out of about 6,000 persons per year. It costs Remploy between £8 and £9 per week per disabled worker. I do not begrudge a penny piece of that money. I am satisfied that Remploy does this work as efficiently as possible.
If it costs Remploy between £8 and £9 a week for each worker, it is very difficult to expect a voluntary organisation to take a maximum of £150 a year, or £3 a week, for a worker to do precisely the same job in a sheltered industry. I am not suggesting for one moment that the financial obligation which the Government extend to Remploy should go to the sheltered industries to the tune of £8 or £9 a week. Conditions are not the same. I do not want to argue that, but, as the voluntary organisations get reimbursed to the extent of only 75 per cent. of their loss, they must raise the other 25 per cent. themselves. In these days that is a very high figure.
Money is not as easy to come by for the voluntary services as it used to be. If the Government could help considerably in finding more places in sheltered workshops, or if they could increase that £150 to £250 a year, it would not be a tremendous burden. Also, it may be that by raising this limit of £150 to £250, still on the basis of paying 75 per cent. of the annual loss, the Treasury would not lose money because it would be taking people off public funds and putting them into places where they would be earning money. If it were possible to make an equation, I think it would be found that what the State paid out in public funds would be more than the increase of £100 per year which I am asking for in sheltered employment.
The third class is the home-bound person. He represents a very tragic group. As the name implies, he is unable to leave his home. Work has to be taken to him. He is then able to earn


some money and the mental rehabilitation is good for him. It is right that the standards of living should be increased, but is it right to maintain this limitation on the earnings of the home-bound worker before we begin to take away some of the advantages under the usual pension arrangements? Is it not time that we permitted the home-bound worker to earn a little more before we begin to lop off any benefits that he gets by way of the social services?
I am afraid that I have spoken for rather longer than I ought to have done, but this is a fascinating subject. It is a subject that could occupy our attention for much longer than this short debate but it is right that we should make some observations about the help that the nation—both the Government and the voluntary workers—can give to disabled persons.
The whole problem should be looked at again. We owe Lord Piercy and his Committee a tremendous debt of gratitude for their Report, to which we all turn back. I wonder whether the Minister agrees that this is the right time to set up a stocktaking committee, which would take the Piercy Report as a basis, consider its recommendations, and examine the present situation in the light of it. Perhaps we could have another of those very good committees which have been presided over by Parliamentary Secretaries in the last few years. It was the late George Tomlinson who started them. It would be a useful thing to review the position once every three or four years, with the Piercy Report as a basis. We should then be making a great contribution to what is undoubtedly a very difficult human problem to many people, in respect of whom the nation has obligations.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. Robert Carr: It is some time since I had the opportunity of addressing the Committee on this subject. When I was at the Ministry of Labour I was always pleased to be able to speak on it. As on the last occasion when the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) and I spoke together on the subject of apprentice training, I take the opportunity of saying that he made a speech which was full of understanding of the subject. Although he has drawn attention to some of the difficulties, and

has quite rightly and naturally pressed for a greater impetus to be given to this work, he would be the first to admit that what has been achieved is a cause of great pride.
Before I went to the Ministry of Labour I did not fully appreciate the extent both of the problem and of our success in meeting it. I want to say a word of praise for the disablement resettlement officers of the Ministry. The right hon. Gentleman drew attention to the fact that they are not having as much success as they used to have in placing disabled persons, but he made it clear that he was not criticising them. I am sure that they are putting every bit as much impetus into their work as they did in the past. The fact is that conditions have been more difficult for them in the last year. It cannot be denied that employment opportunities for disabled people must move more or less in step with overall employment opportunities. Considering the difficulties of 1958, we should be very relieved that the placing of disabled people in employment did not fall even lower, and that the total figure of disabled unemployment did not rise to a greater extent.
If I appear to dwell for a few minutes on what I think is the satisfactory side of the picture, I can assure the Committee that it is not because I am in any way complacent about the problem which still remains. Like many people who have taken an interest in the subject, I was worried as to what might happen when, for the first time after the war, we ran into certain economic difficulties. I feared that our success in reducing the number of disabled unemployed might be largely the result of the tremendous pressure on our employment potential. I could not help having the fear—although my hopes were to the contrary—that if a squeeze came upon our economy we might see a disproportionate rise in unemployment among disabled people. Last year, however, when for the first time since the war we met a major world recession in trade, not only did we ride through it remarkably well from the total employment point of view, but we also did specially well from the point of view of disabled employment.
Last year unemployment among the disabled rose, and I believe that it now


stands at about 55,000. That compares favourably with the all-time low of about 36,000 or 37,000 in 1955 and 1956, and it also compares favourably with about 60,000 in 1950, so that we have succeeded over the years in reducing the figure below that reached in 1950 and also in riding the difficulties in our economy last year without the figure of disabled unemployment rising to the previous highest level.
That is a cause for satisfaction. Indeed, between January, 1958, and January, 1959, while the overall unemployment figure rose by about 60 per cent., unemployment among disabled people rose by only 28 per cent. This shows that employers do not regard disabled workers as the first ones expendable in time of difficulty. It also shows that their fellow workers in the trade union movement are prepared to do all they can to keep disabled workers in employment. Further, it shows the extent of the work done by the Ministry of Labour, and particularly by its disablement resettlement officers, in keeping up the pressure on employers to take the maximum number of disabled workers.
Therefore, although I do not want to belittle the increase in unemployment among disabled people, I think that we should take satisfaction from the way in which the position has been held, and I am glad that during this year, as the economy has begun to expand again, the disabled unemployment figure is once more dropping month by month. I sincerely hope that this trend will continue. I believe we can be reasonably confident that it will.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the question of the quota, and I was interested to hear that the overall percentage had dropped from 3·4 to 3·2. He also raised the question of inspection, and I shall be glad to hear what my hon. Friend has to say about this. I wonder whether we do not need more frequent inquiries of employers as to the number of people they are employing rather than more inspections. I forget how frequently these inquiries are made, but I believe that they have fallen to once in about two years. If they could be made at least once a year the disablement resettlement officers would be provided with sufficiently up-to-date information to be able to put some extra

drive in the direction of persuading employers who may be lagging a little in their quota figures.
I now turn to the question of the sheltered employment under Section II disablement. Here again, following the trend in greater employment difficulties in the country, there has been a deterioration in the figures, but those figures are now improving again as the economy expands. I wish to refer particularly to Remploy, but before I do so may I say that I welcome what was said by the right hon. Gentleman about the tremendously valuable work done in the past by voluntary bodies and also by local authority workshops. I am sure that this work will continue in the future. The right hon. Gentleman pleaded with my right hon. Friend for a greater degree of financial help for those workshops and training facilities and sheltered industries. An improvement was made in the figure a year or two ago and I believe that I had the pleasure of announcing it in the House.

Mr. Robens: Yes, from £100 to £150.

Mr. Carr: As the right hon. Gentleman says, it was from £100 to £150.
I should certainly not oppose my right hon. Friend were he able to announce a further increase. The right hon. Member for Blyth is right in saying that it is most valuable work which merits support not only for its own sake but because I think that economy and good social policy walk hand in hand on this issue. There is, too, the question of the sympathy with which new capital applications are regarded from the organisations providing sheltered employment and training. In the days of stringency, which was inevitable eighteen months or a year ago, such applications had to be regarded as critically as were any other applications. But now that the position has eased I hope that capital applications to provide new training facilities for disabled people may be looked at more generously.
The right hon. Member for Blyth referred to the plan—I do not think he used the word "conspiracy", although he perhaps implied that there was some conspiracy—to keep the number of Remploy workers at a fixed level. I think that is a mistaken view. There are several important points to keep in


mind regarding Remploy. The basic philosophy was not that we should merely find some sort of employment for severely disabled people, but that Remploy should provide employment which was genuinely economic and which made a contribution to the welfare of the economy, and that in no sense should it be occupational therapy and of only marginal value. If that be so, it is important not only to save Exchequer funds but to fulfil the actual purpose of Remploy that it should be a well-managed and progressive organisation.
In the course of a few years Remploy grew from nothing to an organisation with about 90 factories. Any organisation employing only able-bodied people after such a rapid growth would have to pause for a period for consolidation and regrouping. So that when a check was put on the expansion of Remploy a few years ago and a survey made of its progress, and when certain organisational changes were made, I think that something valuable was achieved. Had that not been done we might have found by now that Remploy had become a rather weak growth needing a great deal more propping up than is the case. It is not only a matter of saving money, but of making Remploy self-supporting so far as possible. Therefore, disappointing though it was, I think that the check upon the progress of Remploy was a constructive and not a purely negative move, and now we are seeing the result.
Despite the difficult trading conditions over the past year, and they must have been difficult for Remploy, I understand—because I still continue to take an interest in these matters—that Remploy sales have been maintained and, in fact, are expanding. A great many businesses which have nothing to do with the employment of severely disabled people could not make that claim in 1958, and for Remploy to be able to expand its sales and even slightly to increase the number of severely disabled people who are employed is a tremendous tribute to its directors and managers. It is a justification for the pause in the progress of Remploy which occurred a few years ago to enable a reorganisation to take place in production and selling methods. But for that pause Remploy might now have

been in considerable difficulties whereas, instead, it is strong and going forward today to do even more useful work.
The right hon. Member for Blyth pleaded for some sort of continuing committee to watch over the whole of this matter. I have drawn attention to certain points which I believe give cause for satisfaction. But I would agree that there remains a big problem. We have only just begun to get the recommendations of the Piercy Committee applied to the stage where we can see their results and while it may be too early for another Piercy Committee, I welcome the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary should preside over some sort of watching committee to see how the Piercy Committee recommendations develop in practice and to deal with other problems which may arise. That is a suggestion which I support, and I hope that my hon. Friend may be able to tell the Committee that he regards it favourably.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. J. B. Symonds: I hope that the Committee will bear with me while I address hon. Members for the first time. I wish to pay tribute to my predecessor who was respected by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee as well as being deeply respected in the constituency.
I take part in this debate because of my experience of the disabled and also because I have a personal interest. Disabled persons, particularly those who seek work in open employment, are restricted because of their disability to do only certain types of work, and when there is a shortage of work they are the first to sign on at the employment exchanges. They have asked me, "Why cannot I be trained for a different kind of job which would keep me fit and active and make me feel as if I am wanted in the community?" I have visited several rehabilitation centres and I found them most useful. Is there any reason why the number cannot be increased so that the disabled may be given the chance to which they are entitled rather than have to suffer the soul-searing experience of being unemployed?
A large number of disabled persons in Cumberland would welcome such an opportunity, but I am advised that their


nearest rehabilitation centre is at Felling, which is more than 60 miles away. If there is no opportunity for them there, they have to go to Egham, in Surrey. One feels for the plight of the disabled man, particularly in Whitehaven and Cleator Moor where 11 per cent. of the disabled men have to sign on at the employment exchange.
Surely, it is not right for this Committee to say that 11 per cent. of disabled men shall be unemployed, particularly when the competition is such that in Cleator Moor and Whitehaven we have 960 men unemployed and when the difficulty of their getting jobs is very great. Their problems and difficulties have been brought home to me within the last two months, when I have discovered that even the contractors who come to work at Sellafield bring their own men with them for the purpose, while men in Whitehaven feel they are being done out of jobs. When such things as this are taking place, how can one expect a disabled man to find employment of a nature to which he is suited?
I quite agree that Remploy has done a good job of work, and I agree that the rehabilitation officers have done a good job in placing disabled men in employment. As has already been stated, the increase in the last completed year in the sales and warehouse staffs was 10 per cent., which is a very commendable effort. It would have been better, however, if the orders which had been expected from the Government had materialised instead of dropping by over 16 per cent. If the orders represented by that 16 per cent. had been given to Remploy, it would have meant that many more disabled men would have been employed. Here we have the Remploy organisation making an effort to find work for the disabled, when from the very direction from which it most expects help—the Government—it was disappointed. It must have meant that a large number of disabled men were out of jobs.
I have said, and it has been proved, that these men must work at a competitive price, but is it not much better to have a disabled person producing a good article at a fair price rather than receiving benefit from the employment exchange? I express the hope that none

of the work that should have gone to the disabled has been done in Her Majesty's prisons, because I feel that if such were the case it would be a very great injustice. We should think of the feelings of the ex-Service men who fought and were disabled in the defence of their country if they were told that these articles could be made more cheaply in the prisons.
Let me now turn to the severely handicapped. These are the persons who are subject to a special kind of disability, sometimes wheeled about in chairs, confined to the house and crippled by all kinds of complaints which are well-known to medical men. In the hospitals there is occupational therapy, which I think should be largely extended, but what is the use of this if the person concerned returns to his home to be left there on his own? There is a crying need in many of our towns at present for welfare officers to be employed by the local authority. In suggesting something of this kind, I do not want to decry the very valuable work which a large number of voluntary organisations have done over the years.
I have been chairman of several of these organisations, and I have visited various homes as a member of a war pensions committee dealing with this type of work. At the same time, welfare officers working through the local authority could provide accommodation, perhaps attached to a community centre or a recreation hall, in which the good work which has been started in hospitals could continue. These welfare officers should visit the severely handicapped person in his own home.
How many hon. Members have visited the homes of handicapped people and found them making beautiful lampshades, table mats or even going in for marquetry, which is surely an admirable thing, not only to provide themselves with employment and to give their hands work to do, but to keep their minds active and make them feel that they are still part of the community. There is no nicer experience than that of going to these people's homes and taking them more materials to enable them to continue their work.

On the question of granting financial aid to enable the local authorities to employ special welfare officers for the


disabled, I think this should be in the form of a special grant and not part and parcel of the existing block grant as we know it at the present time.

Now may I turn to another aspect of the problem of the disabled which concerns the blind? I can speak with some assurance and some feeling on this matter because my own son is a registered blind person. Blind people themselves do not want to feel that they are being given charity. They do not want to feel that something is being done especially for them in a charitable way. How man) times have we seen examples of the independence of a blind person? They feel that they want to be part of the community, good working citizens, with plenty of work to do.

When they have no work to do they become aggrieved, and very seriously aggrieved when they are told that they can be employed only two or three days a week when their sighted colleagues are on full-time doing the same work for which they themselves have been trained. That is the tragedy of the blind person, and it is very hard, as I know, to see blind persons with nothing to do. They become restless, irritable and, certainly in a large number of cases, feel morbid.

Here, again, I ask the Government and the local authorities to give to the blind organisations all the work they can in the way of making spring interior mattresses for hospitals, the baskets—not a certain number, but all—for the Post Office, and the doormats and the like which are required in Government and local authority offices, hospitals and so on. I feel that in granting these services to the blind people and giving them the chance to do these things, the Government and the local authorities will get the job done, at a fair price, that a good job of work will be done and that, in the long run, it will save money and eventually make these people into happy and contented citizens.

When dealing with a proposed concession for the blind in connection with the Budget, it was a matter of very great regret to me to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer refuse to give tax relief for guide dogs for blind persons who were employed. It hurt me very much when I heard him say that he was not prepared to do it. I

have seen, as probably other hon. Members have seen, a guide dog very skilfully guiding a blind man across a road among pedestrians and leading him safely to his bus stop. I feel that if the Chancellor could see that, he would relent and would grant the relief that has been asked for. Those who collect money to provide those dogs to help the blind would get great encouragement by such action. As it is, they are disappointed with the right hon. Gentleman.

Many of the disabled persons are men and women who gladly volunteered to fight for their country in World Wars I and II. They will feel very disappointed if the response from the Government is not as generous as was their action in defending this country. Therefore, I ask the Government to do as the Good Samaritan did—help them now.

7.31 p.m.

Mr. Ray Mawby: I have the very pleasant duty, which I have never had before, of congratulating an hon. Member on his maiden speech, and I sincerely congratulate the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Symonds). He spoke with a great deal of experience and feeling on behalf of the people whose case he put. I listened with particular interest to his statement that he has a blind son, and I congratulate him on the way in which he presented the problems of the blind in industry.
His speech reminded me of a firm where I worked where blind people were put on to "viewing" the finished products. In a very short time, the sightless people were "viewing" those objects with far more efficiency and faster than the sighted persons. That shows that we have not gone far enough in industry to take advantage of the great gifts which everyone possesses. It also shows that if one loses a faculty one very often acquires added efficiency in the use of other faculties.
We should do everything possible to make certain that the disabled, however they may have been disabled, can find posts where they feel they are of service to the community. All the way through his speech, which we know was a maiden speech and, therefore, should not be controversial, the hon. Member put his points clearly. I believe he did a great service to this Committee in putting his


experiences before us. We shall all look forward to the time when he can be a little more controversial, and we shall listen with very great interest to the future contributions which he will make to our debates.
The hon. Gentleman pinpointed another thing, of which we should never lose sight, because it is important. It is that the type of industry in an area may dictate the kind of rehabilitation. Some areas have light industries which can probably absorb a lot more disabled than the statutory requirement because they can give them a job after very little retraining. In heavy industry areas it is more difficult to fit the disabled into industry. We should always consider the type of industry in the area and what sort of rehabilitation we should have. This applies even to the location of the rehabilitation centres. In areas where there are such problems there may be far more disabled persons who need to be completely retrained for new trades. This is better than doing what is often done, bringing men into full production in their old crafts after they have been partially disabled.
I have been a member of a local disablement committee, and during that too short period I saw many of the things which are done and I know others that can be done. New people were always coming into the committee, as representatives of employers, trade unionists, and all the rest of it. The membership changed quite often, and because of those changes there came a new impetus from local industries. Every new representative of the employers on the committee realised after some time what the prospects were. Up to that time he had probably thought in terms of the statutory minimum of employing 3 per cent., but once he had seen how an industry could benefit by adapting itself a different attitude was adopted. Anyone who serves on a disablement committee, whether as employer or trade unionist, immediately realises that there are great advantages in making certain that all disabled people obtain employment at the earliest possible moment.
The right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens), in a reference to disablement throughout the country, said that 3·2 to 3·4 per cent. of disabled people were employed in industry. He suggested that

Government Departments should set an example to industry by trying to employ the maximum number of disabled people consistent with efficiency. If the debate has done nothing else but draw the attention of everyone in industry to the problem of disablement, it will have done good. People tend to leave the problem alone and not to look at it.
The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the sense of complete helplessness and despair which is felt by disabled persons who see no prospect of re-employment. We must also take this into account. If one has a serious illness, like pneumonia, it is amazing what a feeling of helplessness one has. On leaving hospital, one feels a certain amount of lassitude and one asks oneself whether there is any future, any prospect. If we feel like that after a major illness, how much more must that feeling exist in people who are permanently disabled. They can only look forward to going to their employers and asking, "Is it possible for you to re-employ me, either in my old trade or after training me for a new trade?"
Fortunately, the rehabilitation centres do a very good job in making certain, not only that they retrain men because they are no longer fitted for the job they are doing, but in bringing men back to a state in which they can be confident that they are able to do their job. That is an advance on the old days when the general practitioner would give a man a note saying, "This man is fit for light duties". The man would approach his employer who would ask him, "What does the doctor mean by light duties?" The man would say, "I do not know", and the employer would then say, "I have not got any light work for you to do; that is just too bad". That sort of haphazard handling of the problem has gone by the board. Now there is the expert attention of the rehabilitation centres and rehabilitation officers, who make certain that a person is either retrained or rehabilitated, with all the occupational therapy which is required.
It can then be said that the man is capable of doing a particular job, and, in fact, capable of doing it over a number of hours each week for many years to come. In those circumstances, employers are naturally prepared to take into employment not only those of their own employees who have suffered accidents—


which is extremely important—but those who have been disabled in the service of their country. It is important that the community should always be prepared to pay the debt it owes to those who have received injuries in the service of the community. I believe that is the way we are going, with all this moving forward by which more and more people in industry realise the problem. We want to keep what we call sheltered employment down to a minimum and concentrate always on helping these people to fit into open employment so that they may feel confident that they are competent of doing a job and earning their living.
A number of other hon. Members wish to speak in this debate; therefore, all I say in conclusion is that we should not sit back now but rather try to make certain that we keep this effort going at as high a rate as possible so that disabled persons can look forward to being absorbed into employment, whether open employment as we hope, or through Remploy schemes in sheltered employment.

7.44 p.m.

Dr. Horace King: I wish, first, on behalf of my hon. Friends and myself to add to the congratulations offered by the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) to my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Symonds) on his maiden speech. I am sure the Committee will agree that in that speech my hon. Friend showed a wealth of knowledge, practical knowledge, of this human problem. He spoke with quiet confidence and firmness and brought to this debate a number of practical suggestions. We on this side of the Committee look forward to hearing him speak on many occasions, but we hope that his next speech will be delivered from the other side of the Committee. [Interruption.] I am sorry that some of my hon. Friends misunderstand me, but I do not think I need explain what I mean.
One morning a few weeks ago almost the whole of the Southampton Remploy Factory workers, all who were fit to travel, were in this very House. Some had to be wheeled in and some had to be carried in by our good friends the attendants, who are always willing to

help. Those workers were visiting the Parliament which had provided them with an honourable living and an honourable livelihood. They came at their own expense. Such a visit, I suggest to the Committee, would have been unthinkable for such crippled men and women thirty years ago.
So I welcome this debate as an opportunity to pay tribute to the work of Remploy. We are spending something like £2½ million a year on it. I believe it is money well spent. I believe we could double it very usefully, and that doubling would probably treble its influence. Much of the expense, to which Committees which have studied the matter have previously referred, goes in overhead management. The expansion of Remploy could provide greater services than would be accounted for by the actual amount of the increase.
It is my very happy privilege to be closely associated with the Southampton Remploy Factory. There, as in all Remploy factories, disabled men and women are earning their own living. It is not easy work, but work which a person with defective limbs can do. This is a very happy factory, thanks to the devotion, skill and leadership of its manager, Mr. Herod, whom I am very pleased to mention in this debate—he rose from the position of a worker in a Remploy factory—and also thanks to the outstanding character of the factory foreman, an able-bodied man. It is usual for the foreman of a factory to be the subject of a music-hall joke, and I find it very difficult to convey to the Committee not only the efficiency but almost the parental interest he takes. He acts not only as an overseer, but as a foster father. Especially is it a happy factory because of the grit and courage of the disabled workers themselves. I find this cheerfulness and courage of the disabled folk of this country an inspiration. If I may say so without appearing to be presumptuous, I find that true—as I am sure all hon. Members find it true through experience of the way in which he tackles his job—of the Parliamentary Secretary who is to reply to the debate.
Running such a factory presents a manager with very many problems. Physical defects bring all kinds of psychological difficulties. I am very


glad to see present the hon. Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson), who has devoted so much of his Parliamentary life to the problems of those who are mentally sick. The matching of disability to endeavour, the encouraging of the productivity of workers in such a factory by all kinds of bonus incentives without penalising those whose smaller quantity of work is due not to slackness but to greater disability, is a real problem for the manager of a Remploy factory.
Keeping the team spirit, keeping the factory happy on the job when the job in every Remploy factory—in our case knitting surgical stockings—is a monotonous one, and when the people themselves are sometimes trying, must indeed be a very difficult task. I wish to assure the Parliamentary Secretary, and through him the Minister of Labour, that Remploy at Southampton is a model of its kind, that in Mr. Herod, the manager, he has found a man who tackles the job of managing in the spirit of dedication. I know from my visits to other Remploy factories in the country that similar men are at the head of them.
In Southampton we have a long waiting list of people who would like to get into Remploy. Remploy is closely in touch with the disablement officers of the Ministry of Labour. I should like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the disablement officers attached to the employment exchanges. It has, however, been my sad duty to sit with selection committees picking out of numbers of disabled people sent to us by the disablement officer one, or perhaps two, who would fill vacancies in the Southampton Remploy Factory.
If the work were available and the factory space were available in our little factory we could easily take double the number. Those who are excluded at the moment are worthwhile men and women who ought to be inside the factory, if we could get them there. The work of any disablement officer of the Ministry of Labour must be most frustrating, but it is particularly so in this case where there are more disabled people than there are special jobs which he can allocate to them. I wish that the country would turn its mind much more to the question of finding work for the disabled.
I was very happy with the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) that we should set up an all-party committee of the House for all time with a special duty of considering the problems of the disabled. I feel sure that there are still able-bodied men and women in this country holding down jobs which make inadequate demands on able-bodied people, when such jobs could provide a livelihood for men and women who are handicapped in some way and would give to such disabled people the satisfaction that they were earning their own living.
I know that by law we reserve a percentage of jobs in various factories and in Government Departments for disabled men and women. I hope that the Minister will accept my right hon. Friend's suggestion and will investigate how far this is being carried out and how far it has been carried out in the spirit with which the country adopted it at the end of the war. I hope that we shall see whether we can stimulate what I am sure is latent in the minds of all good people in this country—a drive to see that jobs which disabled people can competently do are filled by disabled people.
Some years ago when I visited a number of Remploy factories the complaint was made to me that when giving contracts to the Remploy factories Government Departments were by no means generous and that the prices which they put on the work done were as savagely competitive as they would b; to any industry employing able-bodied people. I urge the Government, local government and indeed private enterprise to temper the wind to the shorn lamb and when in doubt to give a contract to the kind of factory which is employing disabled people. For instance, in Hampshire we have a factory making toys and furniture, and the whole of its manpower is tubercular. It is making first-class products. It may not be able to compete absolutely to the last penny with some of the great factories, but if local authorities and Government Departments will keep their eye open for such places when giving contracts, they will be able to contribute much more to the wealth and happiness of the country than they realise.
I should like to see much more research into the kind of jobs suitable for Remploy factories. The simple story of the


Southampton factory is that for five or six years we had knitting machines making surgical socks. We moved out of that five years ago into another type of production, but came back to it because the new production was not suitable. The whole of the ten years of the life of the Southampton Remploy factory has been on such monotonous work. It ought to be possible for man's brain, which devises atomic and nuclear power projects of all kinds of complexity, to break down the work of a civilised community and to pick out of it a variety of jobs which would be within the compass of a man with one arm or a man with one leg or a man who cannot stand or a man who cannot sit or a man who cannot keep his hands steady.
For some years I have felt that we have had hanging over Parliament what I regarded as a singularly unsympathetic Report of a Committee of the House, made some years ago on Remploy. That Report emphasised much more the economic non-viability of Remploy than the great and noble work which it is carrying out. I have a feeling that when that Report came out the Government clamped down on Remploy. There was a period in which the Remploy factories even shrank and had fewer people in them than before the Report was published. It is true—and I am glad that my right hon. Friend pointed this out—that there has been no expansion in Remploy during the last six or seven years.
May I put another thought to the Committee? We are steadily expanding that part of our educational system which deals with defective children—the blind, the deaf, the spastic, the epileptic, the debilitated, the mentally backward. The work of the so-called special schools is magnificent and is expanding dramatically year by year. I would point out to the Committee that there is a very wide gap in our social system when the child, at the end of its days in the special school, tries to find work. It is ironic that, having spent so much time in training, the young blind child or the young deaf child who has been in this educational system, which is working miracles, walks out into the open market at the age of 15 and has little chance of competing on equal terms with his

brother or sister from the ordinary schools. Anyone who has seen the film made by the National Spastics Society can never forget the picture of a crippled young man with a tottering body going from factory to factory, smiling at the manager or foreman and asking for a job, and then turning away dejected.
Let us contrast that picture of the tragic search for work by young people who want to work but who cannot offer 100 per cent. physical or mental capacity with the happiness which exists in every Remploy factory in the country where a group of people are doing a job which they are capable of doing—a group of people who canot muster together a full complement of legs and arms and healthy bodies, but who are earning a weekly pay packet and who feel independent.
One of the outstanding jobs in social work, which probably seemed minor at the time, was the setting up of Remploy by the first Government after the war. I am glad that this debate is being concluded from this side of the Committee by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs), who played a key part, even before he was Minister of Labour, in setting up Remploy. He was director of the first Committee and he was the first Minister of Labour who had the responsibility of administering Remploy. My right hon. Friend has many laurels to his credit, but when he retires from Parliament—and most of us are very sorry to think that that is to be at the end of this Parliament—I feel that one of the most precious jewels in his retirement crown will be the work which he began when he set up Remploy.
I congratulate the present Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary on this part of their work in the Ministry of Labour. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will convey to the organisation running Remploy, which is in a way a separate organisation, the thanks of the Committee and of thousands of disabled folk. I hope that the next Government, whatever their political complexion, will devote some of their energy to the great human problem of helping disabled citizens to play a full and honourable part in the community, and that the debate will contribute to that end.

8.10 p.m.

Dr. Donald Johnson: I welcome this debate, which draws attention to the position of the disabled, which will, we hope, lead to some nation-wide effort on their behalf in the manner already suggested. I am very glad to be able to take part in it, because one of our special difficulties in Carlisle is placing disabled people. Being an isolated place, we do not have the same advantages for training and rehabilitation as there are in many larger and more populous areas. It is, perhaps, the most intractable of the problems in a constituency which is fortunate in not having many outstanding problems. I sympathise very greatly with the frustrations our disablement officer must feel in placing many of these men and in the difficulties he has found, of the type already mentioned by other speakers.
These difficulties tend to concentrate themselves on those people who lack the dramatic appeal of being accident cases, having war injuries or something more obvious of that kind. A man with a duodenal ulcer may be just as much a casualty of industry as a man lacking an arm or a leg, but he does not attract the same attention or gain the same sympathy. One finds the greatest difficulty in placing people of that kind-such as middle-aged persons debilitated by chronic duodenal ulcers. This is a matter of some importance, because in peace time the duodenal ulcer is probably the biggest disability in industry and our national life.
That brings me automatically to the point which it was my intention to make. The debate has naturally centred mainly on the physically disabled, but I was very pleased that the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) mentioned the mentally disabled, whose plight I am glad to say is receiving considerably more attention today than it did in previous years. The hon. Member put his finger accurately on the point, because there are intense efforts, to which I am only too pleased to pay tribute, in our mental hospitals and colonies to rehabilitate the mentally ill, the mentally defective, and so on. One can enter hardly a single mental hospital in the country today without being shown this work, of which the workers in the hospitals are very rightly proud.
The difficulty arises, as the hon. Member pointed out, in bridging the gap and rehabilitating these people into ordinary life. Sometimes they have not been trained in a practical way. Sometimes the machinery on which they have been given mechanical training is out of date and unsuitable. Although those matters are important, even more important are the difficulties and prejudices which have to be overcome in rehabilitating the mentally ill and fitting them for ordinary work and everyday life.
This applies particularly in the case of brain workers, who are naturally just as susceptible, if not more so, to mental illness as manual workers. In one's experience in the ordinary run of correspondence as a Member of Parliament interested in this subject, one finds that people with even the most limited responsibility, in clerical jobs, for instance, have the greatest difficulty in getting back into their own walks of life after a period in a mental hospital.
I cannot do better than quote two actual cases to illustrate my point. The first case is that of a professional lady who was in a mental hospital for three years. She was quite severely ill, as can be gathered by the length of time she spent in hospital. At the end of that time she was told that she was fit to work. She was also told, however, that she could not leave hospital unless she obtained a job. But unfortunately the only job she was likely to obtain whilst still in hospital, being still a certified patient, was domestic work of some kind or other. She took rather a tough view of that and, being a determined person, said that she meant to obtain employment in which she could use her abilities. It took her two years to do so. At the end of that time, by a sort of tour de force, she obtained employment as a scientific librarian. Admittedly that case happened two or three years ago, but it could well happen today. It illustrates the problem of bridging the gap for brain workers who have been in a mental hospital.
The second case is actually happening now and is still an unsolved problem. It is the case of a young man who when he was taken ill was a research worker in physics in a Government Department. He had a very serious attack of schizophrenia, which necessitated him staying


in hospital for most of a couple of years. When he left hospital, the Department which had employed him would give him no help to re-establish himself and would not take him back in his job. He is still looking for a job in which he can use his abilities and is undergoing all the disappointments, difficulties and frustrations, and naturally a certain deterioration in his condition, while he is looking for work.
Rehabilitation is difficult enough in the case of manual workers and mental defectives, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but it is still more difficult—it is indeed a very major problem—for brain workers to re-establish themselves on coming out of mental hospitals. I put in a plea to my hon. Friend that perhaps Government Departments in the case of their employees could give a lead instead of shutting the door, as they have done in the case of this young man.
There is great room to expand the excellent work of the Remploy factories of which we have heard to include not only those who are injured in the ways described, which is the main purpose of the scheme, but those suffering from such other physical ailments as duodenal ulcers, and also the mentally ill. As interest in this subject wakens and widens, I hope that that will prove to be the case.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. B. T. Parkin: Time is short, otherwise there would be a great temptation to follow the hon. Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson) in his exploration of the disablement problems presented by those who have recovered from mental illness, and especially the problems presented by cases of physical disability of nervous origin. It is very difficult to classify these cases neatly, but can the Minister tell us what proportion of those on the disablement register are on it because their disablement has a nervous origin? Clearly, this is a problem on its own and it needs its own solution, but as we are talking at the moment in terms of percentages it is fair to say that the Government have been unable to absorb more than a certain percentage of disabled people into the Remploy factories.
Some of us have been pressing the Minister, and have asked Questions, and

have shown concern about the fall away in the number of disabled placed, and the admitted difficulty there has been in placing them in the last year or so. That is not the main reason for this debate. I believe that we ought to debate this problem as regularly as we debate any other aspect of the workings of the Welfare State and the social services. There are bound to be lessons to be learned from experience, fresh suggestions to be discussed and fresh policies to be outlined for the future.
Neither does the question of cost enter very much into this subject. I have never heard anyone grumble at the subsidy required to sustain the people engaged by Remploy. The cost to the nation of not rehabilitating them is undoubtedly greater, although it may fall on the Votes of different Departments, than is the present cost of rehabilitation. Therefore, the main thing is to ensure that the money is sensibly spent and that it produces the desired results.
I listened with respect to what I might call the warnings issued by the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Carr). The hon. Member has served in the Ministry of Labour. He is also a business man, and he gave a business man's warning; but although those observations carry great weight, I wonder if it is really fair to lump all the varied tasks of Remploy under one head and to say, "This is a very big organisation. There are a lot of factories. We should pause, and consolidate."
I hope that the Minister will tell us what he has in mind for the future of Remploy. I am not here to advocate any particular view. One knows that there have been internal discussions and talks outside about the best organisational set-up for Remploy, but I do not think that any of the aspects can be excluded. If anyone says in reply to the criticisms of those of us who are anxious that Remploy should undertake more responsibilities, "It is getting rather large now," the answer is to divide the work into categories for which different types of management and supervision are required.
If it is merely a question of finding sheltered employment for a certain number of people, one very simple answer is to use the list of priority suppliers—a list that has been established by


negotiation and argument in the last few years. It is admitted that it is light that the Treasury should accept a list of priority Government suppliers. There are enough items that the Government and the various branches of the social services need to purchase in steady, known quantities to enable us to devise a programme of employment for a very large number of disabled persons.
Has the Minister arrived at a settlement with the Treasury as to what constitutes a fair price in the arrangement by which certain Departments are allowed to place orders with priority suppliers without going to tender? That is one of the outstanding small difficulties in the way of an expansion of this scheme.
There is something of which Remploy has had some experience, in respect of which some private firms have organised themselves, and which the Ministry of Supply is now anxious to throw back to the manufacturers of certain products. I refer to what is called packaging and identification. It sometimes happens that for ease of identification and transfer of some very small component of a very important machine or piece of equipment to wherever it will be needed, the item has to be so packed, painted, stencilled and identified that the cost of doing that is very much greater than the cost of the little gadget itself.
I understand that private manufacturers are a little wary of the Government in this matter. It is something that does not lend itself to simple processes of stencilling or stamping, but something about which the purchasing Departments are liable to change their minds, and to say that, instead of there being two blue upright stripes, identification must be by means of horizontal green stripes so that it may be recognised more easily by certain other ranks when collecting the item from stores.
As a result of that experience, private manufacturers have tended to make a rather high charge for that work, but I believe that it is work that in almost every case could be done by Remploy. When one is looking for the work best suited to disabled people—whose skill may be of high degree but limited range—what we want is work which, if it is done slowly, does not hold up somebody else's work. We do not want the sort of work which is part of a gigantic

planned flow where a serious handicap arises involving loss of production if one section of it is liable to hold-ups. We want the sort of work involving patient skill, where time is of no importance.
There is another branch of Remploy's work about which one would like to hear more, and that is the scheme for sponsored factories, for getting private manufacturers to undertake to supply the knowledge, and to integrate into their own firms certain components made by Remploy under an arrangement whereby the price paid would be no greater than the cost to the manufacturer in his own factory of the component made by people without physical handicap. I expect there have been some failures, but I know there have been some successes. I should like to know what the Minister feels about the future of sponsored factories and the degree to which he now feels it is safe to encourage other manufacturers to come into this scheme. I wonder what his view is of the results of the schemes that have already been developed.
In another category there is the work done by Remploy in the ordinary field of commerce. One is glad to see Remploy vans distributing their products, gaily painted with advertisements and indications of what is inside, as though they were hard at it like anyone else to earn a living in the tough world of commerce. One is glad to know that they have been encouraged to show so much initiative, that they have risked competition from outside in building up a sales force which, of course, is most important when venturing into the ordinary world of commerce. But I feel strongly that there is no reason why one of these approaches should exclude any of the others. If there is to be any feeling that Remploy has grown too fast and ought to pause, I should have thought that the alternative would be to form different branches of it to deal with these different categories of work. After all, Remploy itself is only a device. Nobody ever thought that the problem was solved because my right hon. Friend thought it up years ago and sold the idea to other people. He would be the first, as I expect he will shortly tell us, to advocate fresh ideas and experiments.
I am wondering whether some of the seasonal trades might not be a suitable


field into which Remploy should venture—trades in which the products can be sold only at certain times of the year and where, in the ordinary way, a fair amount of capital is tied up in the finished product and in paying for the storage of the finished product when it is made by a private manufacturer.
Another subject which bears investigation is home work. That has a very bad reputation, particularly among trade unionists and the working class generally. They have very unhappy memories of sweated labour, of menial tasks carried out usually by women and sometimes by the sick and children at home, and it is an activity which for a long time the trade union movement has wanted to see abolished. But it is an interesting thought that if Benjamin Franklin and his kite had made more rapid progress than James Watt and his kettle, we might have had electricity as the motive power before we had steam, and in that case we would not have had the factory system except as an assembly point. The factory system as we know it was necessary only because the machines driven by the steam engine had to be hitched to the shafts. If we had had electricity first we might not have lost our cottage loom. We might have had much more industry at home.
I believe that a great deal of the skilled and properly paid work is at present farmed out in small units. The Ministry are the best people to know about that. They could have a survey to find out whether there is any scope for development of a system in which work is done at home by disabled people with power-driven tools, of course in decent surroundings and with proper ventilation and so on.
I should now like to say a word on the special problems of London where there are long distances to travel. There are a lot of disabled in London, and a lot of disabled come into the category mentioned by the hon. Member for Carlisle. I think they constitute the biggest problem that we have in the constituencies. I do not think the problem of placing disabled workers in London will be solved apart from the problem of London industry as a whole. Within ten years there will be a need to declare London a Development

Area. Within five years, unless something is done to plan to meet the situation, London Members will be complaining bitterly about what has happened to industry in London.
Since the Ford factory was built at Dagenham, there has been no large factory constructed in or near London, and there never will be. No new industry has been allowed to come near London. The children of London today have the most wonderful opportunities for training, as have the disabled in London. They can take their choice. If one wants to know how to make glass eyes or christening cakes, or how to crack oil, one only has to lift the telephone and one can arrange an evening course at short notice which will lead to a high diploma and some of the finest qualifications in the land. But the new electronics and plastics industries will not be allowed to develop in London. All the successful firms in London will begin to say, "What about Stevenage or Harlow or some other new town?"
A great deal of work of a servicing nature is done in London, which brings me back to the point that I was trying to make earlier. Surely the sort of work that skilled disabled people can do best is that where it does not matter whether they take time over it, as long as they use skill. For instance, there must be a number of parallels to the cleaning of watches. There must be machinery, equipment and instruments which must be patiently taken to pieces to be overhauled, work which can be done only by those with training and understanding although not the physical ability to do the work rapidly. I expect that as the nature of work available in London changes there may be more and more of that type of work and less and less manufacturing work.
Those are the points that I wish to make to the Minister, and I hope that he will give us an encouraging reply, telling us his ideas on the necessary solutions for this problem in London.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. George Isaacs: I came to the Committee expecting that we should hear on this occasion, as we have heard so frequently on other occasions, a specific reference to the cost involved in this work. Tonight, we have


had very few statistics. We have not heard much about finanical considerations, but we have heard a good deal about rehabilitation, not only as a useful economic activity but as something that creates self-respect in every person taking part in it and also gives him the prospect of a settled place in industry. We have heard about Remploy. We have heard criticisms and suggestions about it, but even now I doubt whether hon. Members know what was the idea behind the inception of Remploy. I wonder how many people appreciate that it was a war-time measure, brought into existence with the complete co-operation and approval of all parties in the House. It began long before the Bill came into the House. It began as a tripartite organisation.
At the time that Remploy came into existence the Ministry of Labour was under the control of that great trade union man and great friend of all of us, Ernie Bevin. He conceived the idea of Remploy. Having conceived it, he discovered that he had some brilliant brains in the Ministry to help him to bring it into operation. The first thing to do was to work the scheme out, and therefore a tripartite committee, like the International Labour Organisation, was established,. It consisted of representatives of the employers' organisation, of the Trades Union Congress—I was one of those—and of the Ministry. When I mention the name of the Chairman, everyone who knew him will remember him with respect, happiness and affection. He was George Tomlinson, Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour.
That Committee was exceedingly fortunate. The name of one of the representatives of the Ministry is not known, but it will be known after I have mentioned it tonight. The name of a most senior official representative of the Ministry—I never could understand their ranks; I did not know whether they were generals, lieutenant-generals, or what, but he was one of the "blokes" almost at the top—was Mr. Wiles, and he helped us to get the matter through and to get us on the right lines. We had a lot of troubles. First, we had to determine whether we should extend the scope of the Bill beyond industrial injuries. That was the view that people at first held.

At any rate, after a lot of talk, we got it to cover domestic injuries. What was most difficult of all, we got it to cover what I believe are called congenital injuries—the sort of afflictions with which one is born or those which become apparent without a person sustaining an accident.
There was a good deal of "ganging up "Sometimes the trade unions and employers ganged up against the Ministry. That was all right. Sometimes the trade unions and the Ministry ganged up against the employers. That was all right. Sometimes, to our great astonishment, the Ministry and employers ganged up against the trade unions. I did not think that that was quite right, but we got away with it. We got out a draft which was brought before the war-time Parliament. We were getting towards the end of the war, and Ernie Bevin—if he was alive and here now I would have to call him my right hon. Friend, but, although he is not here, he is still my right hon. Friend—handed the Bill over to George Tomlinson to pilot through the House.
The same tripartite arrangement was in operation then. George Tomlinson was a Ministry representative on what was then the non-Government side—we did not then call it "the Opposition". There was myself and, on the other side, a representative of the employers, for a long time a member of the House of Commons. He did not represent the employers there, but he was a representative employer, all the same. He was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, now in the other place as Lord McCorquodale.
With the co-operation of the Government, of the employers, of Members of the House who were employers and Members who were trade unionists, we got the Bill through with the good will of all concerned. The next thing was to put it in operation. As soon as the Bill had passed through the House—to use the old saying, I do not suppose that His Majesty's signature was yet dry upon it—Ernie Bevin set about establishing the corporation. I was glad to accept an invitation to become one of the first members, one of the charter members of the corporation. I had the privilege and pleasure of working with the corporation for a short time, seeing it set to work and witnessing the keenness of all those


who came m. I am interested to read in the Report now that there is still, as an executive director, one of the first people to be employed by the corporation to act as a kind of staff officer to set things going. I mean Air Commodore Venn. I am glad to know that he is still with the corporation. It was a very hard task—all of us green at the job—to find out who would be a good man to undertake this almost impossible task of finding work and starting factories for the disabled.
We found the man. The job was started. Then, I was thrown off the board of directors. After being appointed Minister of Labour, I was not good enough for the board of directors, so I had to leave. The Ministry was entrusted with the task of assisting the corporation. We had to assist it in providing proper material with which to work. As a matter of fact, it was all a kind of education scheme. One could really call it "the three Rs"—rehabilitation, retraining and reemployment. It was under the control of a staff of officers, to whom the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Carr) referred, the D.R.O.S as they are called, the disablement resettlement officers. What is meant by "rehabilitation"? I would say that it means regaining the use of limbs. "Retraining" means learning to use those limbs in an organised and coordinated manner. "Re-employment" means getting people back to work.
So that all hon. Members may understand the spirit and feeling behind this work, I will give one of the many examples which come to my mind. I went to one of the training centres which was preparing men and training them to be ready for work with Remploy. It was on the East Coast, up in Lincolnshire. I was taken to speak to a young man of about 30 or 35 years of age, very strongly built, with a fine head, a most intelligent man, who had been so badly crippled that he had never been able to walk at all. Rehabilitation for him meant putting him into hospital, breaking his legs and resetting and straightening them again. Finally, he was able to walk. He called it walking. It looked to me more like the movement of a crab, but he was able to get about and stand on his feet. The next job was to train him. He was trained as an electric welder. The only thing wrong with him

affected his legs; his hands and his brain were all right, and in a short time, he became quite skilful. He was to start work two or three days after I visited the factory.
I spoke to this young man and asked him how he felt. I do not remember his exact words, of course, but the effect of what he said was this: "Minister, I have never been able to do a stroke of work in all my life. My mother is a widow, and, for years, she has taken in washing so that she can keep and feed me. From next Monday, my mother will never have to do any more washing at all "That is a good example. There we found a man who had regained his own self-confidence.
We must remember, also, that there is often a double problem. In the poor streets of London where I spent my early days, I met many people who were badly disabled. There was no Ministry of Labour for them, nothing but the Board of Guardians, and they would rather die than go there. They stayed at home, and their wives would try and find a bit of work in order to keep body and soul together. The man not only lost his self-respect, he felt that he was no more than flotsam and jetsam, and a bally nuisance to the missus as well. When we take one of these disabled persons and get him out of his miserable surroundings, find him a job and send him to work, we not only make him happy but make his people at home happy, too, where there was only misery and despair before.
I saw this great work begin. I was at the Ministry of Labour for over five years and I have never had a chance of blowing its trumpet until now. Looking back, I want to say how I admire and respect the conscientiousness of the devoted band of workers in that Ministry, from top to bottom, who undertook every difficult task given to them—building up forces, reversing the machine, and bringing down forces—training people in building work and all sorts of other work; and on top of that they were given this job. They did it. What happened? The hon. Member for Mitcham made reference to the fact that Remploy had to check, to pause for a while, to re-examine the situation.
I remember all about that. The reason was that Remploy was pushing on a


little too quickly. I doubt if there was an hon. Member in an industrial constituency who did not come to me as Minister and press his claim for Remploy in his constituency. I was interested to hear the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Symonds) and I compliment him upon it. Not only was it a good maiden speech, but he took up the point that Frank Anderson was always chasing me about. My hon. Friend wants Remploy. Frank Anderson always wanted Remploy. My hon. Friend should carry on and fight for it. It is not possible to plant Remploy in every constituency. It has to have plans and it must have work. It is not my place here to defend or to explain the actions of Remploy. I think the Report does that itself.
What did Remploy do? It started from scratch with nothing. It had then, and still has, a great number of devoted people serving as directors and getting no financial reward. There is no pay attached to it, but, thank goodness, there are not so many kicks as there are in some other branches of public service. They are giving their time and doing their best to help Remploy carry out the job which it has been given to do. Over the years, it has employed on average 6,000 disabled workers each year. I wonder what those workers would have done if Remploy had not found them a job.
I should mention the other part of the Act, which required all employers to employ a certain percentage of disabled persons on their staffs. Every time a difficult job had to be done by the Government it was bunged on to the Ministry of Labour. The Government said, "These people can tackle anything. Let them have a go at this." That was carried out, and the disablement resettlement officers took a hand in the different areas to help those people who were not able to go into ordinary industry. It was found that not all the number could be absorbed, and it was a great disappointment when we found that we could not get enough factories built immediately to take in all these people.
We have heard about money and we have heard that the last time that Remploy was discussed it was not doing as well as had been expected. However, I notice that sales last year increased by £564,800. There was a paragraph

in the Report which seems to have been lifted from the first Report ever printed and to have been published ever since. It says:
… during the year under review we have increased our sales by £564,800,… no mean achievement, especially in view of a noticeable recession in the commercial market towards the end of the financial year. Our sales would have been even more satisfactory if the orders which we had expected from Government Departments had materialised.
We have always had that trouble. The problem is that each Ministry is an empire of its own. Each Ministry looks to its own statements of account and so on. It is very difficult for the Ministry of Labour to persuade another Ministry to accept Remploy orders if the other Ministry can say that it can get the article much more cheaply from somewhere else and that it will have the Treasury "step on its neck" if it spends more money than it needs.
We tried to have instructions or advice given to other Departments on this matter, but we were always up against it. It was finally decided that other Departments should give a small percentage of their contracts to Remploy at the price at which the contract had been accepted. So far as my recollection goes, it was something like this: if a contractor had contracted to supply 100,000 articles at £1 each, 10 per cent. of that order could go to Remploy, but Remploy would get only £1 for each article, and at that rate, obviously, it could not make it pay.
The result has been that Remploy has been unable to make a profit, in money terms. On the other hand, it has made a profit in another way. Last year alone 141 severely handicapped persons returned to normal industry, so that Remploy is providing a good service in other ways. What does this mean in costs? I am happy not to find the words "profit and loss" in the Report. I compliment Remploy on avoiding that phrase, because there is no loss in this job when we weigh it all up. There may be an excess of expenditure over income, and in the year under review Remploy spent £2½ million more than it received.
The Parliamentary Secretary is a better mathematician than I am, so I pass the buck to him, but I work that out as £2½ million spread over the population


of about 50 million and that, in the phrase of the old workers' union organising scheme, works out to "a bob a nob"—Is. per head of the population per year. Who will grumble at that? Every member of this Committee when approached by someone on a flag day will donate more than Is.—unless there is someone who thinks that he ought to "bang it down to saxpence".
That is the cost of Remploy in money terms. What is the cost in happiness and contentment? I am happy to know that. nobody has suggested cutting down Remploy. The suggestions have been for its development and expansion. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give us some information on those lines and some encouragement that the corporation will be given the facilities and opportunities to do more than it is now doing.
As is shown by this Report especially, up to now the directors have shown that they know what they are doing and how to do it. I conclude by borrowing a phrase used in war time by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), although I have distorted it a little, and I say this to the Ministry and through the Ministry to the Treasury: "These directors know what they are doing; give them the tools and they will get on with the job."

8.50 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Richard Wood): I am grateful to the Committee for having allowed me, probably only too willingly, to keep my speech to the end of the debate when I can try to answer the many points that have been raised.
May I add my sincere congratulations to the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Symonds) on his maiden speech. I hope that he is not getting tired of being congratulated, but we were pleased to hear him and I hope that we shall hear him often. However, I do not share the hope expressed by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) that the hon. Member's next speech will be from this side of the Committee. The hon. Member for Whitehaven represents a very beautiful county. The trouble with doing that is that the problems of remoteness there are such that training, rehabili-

tation and Remploy facilities are apt to be rather sketchy, but I appreciated what he said and the interest that he showed in the rehabilitation and re-employment of these unfortunate people in his constituency who cannot find work.
There is natural concern in this Committee at any increase in the unemployment of the disabled. We are all grateful to those who arranged this debate for giving us a chance, which we get all too rarely, of looking at this matter and examining ways in which the position can be still further improved. In my remarks tonight I should like to deal with the question of disabled unemployment generally, then with the question of those who need sheltered employment, and, lastly, to talk about the part which I believe that the Government should play.
There are four main categories of the disabled. All Governments accept the obligation to assist those who are handicapped, though, in the knowledge of us all, there are many who are generally considered to be handicapped but who suffer no disadvantage whatsoever as far as employment is concerned. We know of a number of such people who are absolutely secure in their jobs, just as secure as any able-bodied person.
Secondly, there are those who, although considerably handicapped, have important abilities remaining and who are capable of highly useful work as long as care is taken in selecting the job. This is something in which doctors, almoners and D.R.O.s have a part to play, but a great deal depends on the attitude of the employer. Perhaps most depends on the attitude of the employer in the field which my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson) mentioned, the rehabilitation and resettlement of those who have been mentally ill.
The hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) asked me what proportion of registered disabled people had received their disabilities through nervous origins. The figures given in the Ministry of Labour Annual Report for 1958 show that 2·8 per cent. of the total had a disability beginning in psycho-neurosis, and 1·4 per cent. in mental defects and disorders other than psycho-neurosis. Those two categories total 4·2 per cent. and amount to about 30,000 out


of a total of 740,000 registered disabled people. That is a considerable proportion.
As I said, a lot depends on the attitude of the employer, whether his attitude is that any old job will do for someone who is disabled or whether he takes infinite care, as some of them do, to try and find the right job and adapt tools and environments to suit the particular circumstances of the disabled worker. Ever since I became interested in the subject I have seen a consistent improvement in the attitude of employers. Taken generally, their attitude has become consistently more helpful. I sometimes feel that it might be useful if a study could be made of successful attempts on the part of employers to fit work to the functionally remaining capacities of disabled people—attempts which have completely eliminated the effects of disability on the disabled workers' productivity.
In this connection, a most important matter is that of training, which the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. A. Robens) and other hon. Members have mentioned, because a great many of us know of men and women who, merely because of their disability and subsequent training, have eventually found themselves in much more satisfactory jobs than they had before they were disabled. That is a great example of the need for training the disabled and the immense potentialities that they still have if properly trained.
I was pleased to hear the references made by the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Symonds) to the value of voluntary service. Not only in the Government training centres but in the training colleges—with one of which the right hon. Gentleman and I have the pleasure of being connected—training of very great value is being undertaken. I listened with a sympathetic ear to the plea of the right hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs) for more money in this respect. I do not think that he would expect me to answer him tonight, but I can tell him that his plea did not fall on deaf ears; the ears were only too ready to hear some of the things he said.
The third category of disabled, which is much in our minds tonight, comprises those who, for some reason or other, find their rate of production so slowed

down that they have to work either temporarily or permanently under sheltered conditions. There are about 15,000 of these people, including about 4,000 who are at present unemployed. We are only too glad to hear from the right hon. Member for Southwark that over the years many of these people have graduated from Remploy and other sheltered industry into open industry, doing work on level terms with able-bodied people.
Lastly—certainly not to be lost sight of, but probably not a subject for debate tonight—are those so badly disabled as not to be in the employment field. The consideration mentioned by the right hon. Member for Blyth in respect of the earnings of the home-bound being allowed to rise to a higher level before they diminish other benefits is a question for some of my right hon. Friends. I will see that it is brought to their notice. The needs of these people, which are very great, are recognised both by the Government and by local authorities, who have taken great steps to try to meet them.
The right hon. Member for Blyth and other hon. Members mentioned the need to follow up the Report of the Piercy Committee—to see that the recommendations of the Committee are implemented and to watch over the progress of the service for the disabled. I am delighted to see here the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood). since he and I had the pleasure of serving on the Piercy Committee. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there is a standing committee on the rehabilitation and settlement of disabled persons which meets regularly and has issued three reports. It has been sitting under the able chairmanship of Dame Mary Smieton.
In my opinion this is the body, together with the National Advisory Council on the Employment of the Disabled, which can keep a continuous watch on the affairs of the disabled, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am in the closest touch with these committees. Any recommendation of the Piercy Committee which the right hon. Gentleman thinks is being lost sight of will come within the purview of both those bodies, and will be examined on the Floor of the House.
Regarding the unemployment of disabled generally, the present figure of Section I, those eligible for open industry, is 51,000, and that of Section II, those needing sheltered employment, is 4,000—a total of 55,000—against a total register of 715,000. I think I ought to make the point that the register has fallen in the last five years as was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, from nearly 850,000 to just over 700,000. Therefore, there is a smaller field for the placing work of the Ministry.
Lookng at the figures for disabled unemployment over the last ten years one finds considerable fluctuations which are not always possible to explain by the general employment situation. In June, 1949, the figure was 63,000. In June, 1951, it fell to 44,000. It rose again to 53,000 two years later and in June, 1955, it went down to 36,000 which was its lowest point. Last year it rose again, and in January of this year it was up to 63,000. I am glad to say that in the five months between January and June it has fallen to 55,000. There has been a decrease in each month of this year, but I will be frank with the Committee and say that while unemployment generally is lower than last year, unemployment among the disabled is higher all over the country except in the London and South-Eastern Region.
I feared that when the unemployment figure was rising the disabled would be among the first to suffer from the recession, but, in fact, the increase in the disabled unemployed was proportionately much smaller than the general increase. From January, 1958, to January, 1959, while the able-bodied unemployed figure increased by 60 per cent. the disabled figure increased by 28 per cent. Part of the reason for that is the quota scheme. I also think that part of the credit must be given to the improved outlook of employers because over the years the employers of disabled workers have become much more conscious of the competence of these people and are reluctant to discharge them.
My conclusion, which I think is borne out by the facts, is that, in general, disabled workers hold on to jobs more tenaciously than do able-bodied workers. On the other hand, when unemployment is falling the exact opposite seems to be

true. It is more difficult then for a disabled person to recapture a job or find a new job than for an able-bodied person. This is partly because able-bodied people are more mobile, both geographically and industrially. Certainly in recent months, while the unemployment figure generally has fallen by 36 per cent. the disabled unemployed figure has fallen by only 13 per cent.
There is also a difference in the length of time taken by disabled persons who have lost their jobs to regain them. Two-fifths of the able-bodied who are unemployed have been out of work for less than six weeks. Only one-fifth of the disabled have been out of work for less than six weeks, four-fifths have been out of work for longer. Age is an important factor. Half of the disabled unemployed are over 50 and about 30 per cent. of the able-bodied are over 50, so that it is difficult for the D.R.O.s.—who have been complimented very often in this debate—to place older men and women who are disabled when younger able-bodied men and women are in competition with them. But I am confident that as the economy expands and vacancies increase, the employment situation generally will become easier, and I hope that the disabled who are at present unemployed will share in that general benefit.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned some facts about the quota, and said that the percentage of disabled employed by Government Departments had fallen from 5·5 to 4·7 per cent. I think that is true, and one main cause of it, as he well knows, is that a great many of the 1914–18 war pensioners were employed in Government Departments, and a great many of them have retired in the last few years. That is the greatest single cause for the reduction in the percentage.
The right hon. Gentleman was also entirely right in saying that the overall average percentage employed by employers who have quota obligations has fallen, although it is still above the specific obligation of 3 per cent. I will, therefore, consider his suggestion about more frequent inspections to see whether there are not employers who are under the quota. On this matter we are advised from time to time by the National Advisory Council for the Disabled, and its advice is that it is not so much more


frequent inspections that are needed as for the Department to return to its annual inquiry on quota obligations. For a time, when employment was very good, we dispensed with the annual inquiry and held one every two years, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. Carr) asked, we have now returned to the annual inquiry, and we believe it will give us more of the information that we ought to have.
I should like to say something about the Section II disabled. These figures also follow the recent trend, but there is considerably less fluctuation, for the very obvious reason that most Section II disabled are employed in sheltered workshops and are, therefore, not so subject as the others to the ordinary uncertainties of unemployment. Here the average figures of the unemployed in Section II, requiring sheltered employment dropped every year in the last ten years, without exception, up to the time when they reached their lowest level in 1956–57 of 3,670. There was a small rise in June last year and in January of this year the figure was up to 4,250, but in June of this year, I am glad to say, it was down again to 4.160.
I should like to say frankly to the Committee that some of these 4,160 are, in my opinion, very unlikely to find work because, while there are more than 3,000 in areas which are served by existing Remploy factories or other sheltered workshops, there are, as we have been reminded several times today, a number, probably over 1,000, who are remote from such possibilities of sheltered employment. I understand that Remploy capacity could be increased by about 1,000 if the trading position and the work available allowed. There will, however, be a considerable number of these 4,000 Section II disabled whom it will be very difficult to help by Remploy, or other sheltered industries, because some happen to be so far away from them and because a great number of others are unsuitable for the work that happens to be available in their own locality. This problem of remoteness suggests the need for a greater number of smaller workshops.
Up to fairly recently it was very difficult for the Government to offer capital help, but I should like to tell the Committee now that the Government would

be willing at the present time to consider suitable schemes for capital expenditure where the need is clearly established. Therefore, the hope for the disabled unemployed lies, first, in ordinary industry for all those who can work in it, and, secondly, in the provision of adequate sheltered employment facilities not only by the workshops for the blind but in other workshops and in Remploy.
Remploy has been much discussed tonight. It is important to examine the ways in which the Government might be able to help Remploy and other sheltered workshops to try to do the job for which they were created. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham, when he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour back in March, 1956, announced for Remploy his five-year plan which was to run from 1956 to 1961. The Government promised £1 million in capital expenditure for that time and up to 2½ million a year—I humbly say to the right hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs) that his arithmetic was exactly right—to meet the net trading deficit. Both those sums would be subject to adjustment for inflation.
As was pointed out by the right hon. Member for Southwark, sales have increased during the past year, but at the same time the company has had much higher costs to contend with, in the way of wages, rents, rates, and so on, which have swallowed up the gains that it hoped to make from increased production. Partly because the total sales of Remploy have increased, and partly because Government contracts have decreased—they have been moving in opposite directions—the Government's percentage of total contracts is much lower than it was in 1955. Some hon. Members have pointed to this fact and have deplored it. I deplore it too, but I do not think it is wholly undesirable. There are certainly bright patches in the picture. One of them is the great credit which ought to be reflected on the directors of Remploy in developing other markets.
It is unlikely in the future that the Government's share of the total contracts will be as great as it was in the past. Nevertheless, it is important to examine the ways in which we might increase our orders. We must first get clear what function Remploy and other sheltered workshops should perform.
This is a matter on which several hon. Members have given their views tonight, with most of which I think I agree. Remploy and other sheltered workshops were never expected, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, to make profits, and the Government were always ready from the start to stand behind them in support. The hon. Member for Padding-ton, North expressed what is in the minds of most of us when he suggested—I am not quoting his actual words but giving the sentiment of them—that to spend money on giving men and women useful work is a far more desirable social objective than giving them allowances to live their lives in idleness. With that sentiment we should probably all agree.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham expressed the view—I hope the Committee does not feel that the two views are incompatible—that it was important that Remploy and other sheltered workshops should be plainly recognisable as commercial concerns. If they were not so recognisable I am convinced that they would soon become very little different from welfare centres. The effect of that upon those working there would be extremely pernicious. It would have a demoralising effect on the many excellent people in Remploy to know that the firm for which they work was not in competition at all with other industries.
Secondly, and this is most important, the present flow from Remploy to open industry, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, would, if Remploy became completely uncommercial, soon be reduced to a mere trickle. That would be a very serious result. Therefore it is essential that losses should be kept to a reasonable figure. I think it also essential that the competitive conditions, even if they are cushioned, should in some way be preserved. This limits the expansion of sheltered industry and also rather circumscribes the action which the Government can take. Against this background, I should like to examine some ways in which Remploy might be helped to expand.
Before I come to these, there are the sponsorship schemes, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Paddington, North. There are ten of them at the moment employing 400 workers

and soon there will be two more. There are possibilities of others being arranged. We take the most encouraging view of them because in many cases they contribute to a regular flow of work for Remploy with no sales or distribution costs. I think the directors of Remploy feel it would be unwise, however, to put all their eggs into the sponsorship basket because this might make them too vulnerable to fluctuations in the level of trading activity.
The first matter which, no doubt, would help Remploy and other priority suppliers would be a widening of the field of Government work available. It is for this purpose—in fact, I think this is one of the main services that it might render—that the standing Committee, of the priority suppliers, on the one side, and purchasing departments on the other largely exists. It is very much an information-exchanging body. It was never expected that this body itself would lead to a vast increase in contracts for the priority suppliers, but I am sure it can perform a most useful function in the sense of acquainting each side with what the other side can do, and I hope it will have an effect in widening the amount of work available.
Another suggestion made by the hon. Member for Whitehaven was that in some fields priority suppliers should be given exclusive rights of supply for certain selected items. This suggestion was recently made in another place and the difficulties were explained by my noble Friend, Lord Dundee. I certainly should not reject it as a possible solution. In fact, it has been followed very largely in the case of the supply of stump socks, but, if we build too much hope on it, we are likely to be disappointed because this particular method is unlikely to have a very significant effect in increasing orders from priority suppliers.
The hon. Member for Paddington, North mentioned the question of the fair price and wanted me to comment on it. There is sometimes a slight misunderstanding about the fair price, as I think the hon. Member knows well. One sense in which the phrase is used is the assessment a Department makes of what the lowest tender would be if tenders were asked for. In cases where tenders are not asked for, it might fix what it thinks is a reasonable price for the product.


There is another sense in which the phrase is used. That is in fixing a price to include wages, materials and an appropriate allowance for overheads. If then the purchasing Department said that was a fair price, Remploy and the other priority suppliers would feel they bad a much greater chance of acquiring the contract. In other words, the Departments under this scheme should pay to priority suppliers whatever costs they might incur in making the goods.
There are various objections to that. First, as the hon. Member pointed out, purchasing Departments have to buy in the cheapest market. Secondly, there is the objection that the Departments would certainly feel that by the use of their limited funds they were subsiding a particular group of suppliers. The third objection is what Parliament might feel in seeing money which was voted for one purpose being used for another. Perhaps the greatest disadvantage and difficulty is the lack of incentive to priority suppliers to keep down their costs and the absence, as I tried to stress a moment ago, of the stimulus of competition.
The hon. Member for Paddington, North apparently wishes to intervene. I might anticipate him if I say a word about a variation of the fair price which does not exclude competition. It is suggested that sometimes, when Departments are buying, the lowest tender put in is unrealistic and is put in by someone who wants the job almost at any price. It is suggested that such tenders are not fair tenders for Remploy and other sheltered industries with the inevitable disadvantages which they have to compete against.
It has been suggested that it might be fair to allow a percentage addition to the lowest tender in the case of priority suppliers. This suggestion, unlike the fair price proper, has the merit of preserving some form of competition, while it offsets some of the handicaps which are suffered by priority suppliers. On the other hand, it still violates the obligation which I think ought to be felt by any Government Department to obtain supplies as cheaply as it can. However one looks at it, it is a departure from the strict doctrine of competition. It is. moreover, a subsidy, and many people feel that if we are to have subsidies, these should be openly admitted and administered.

Mr. Parkin: The hon. Member is giving a very important answer to a very important question. I do not think that anyone would disagree with the comments which he made earlier about the activities of Remploy in normal commerce. Everything he there said about incentive is true. These people have been given a handicap in the race. Having been allocated a handicap, they know where they stand and they have an incentive to go ahead. If they beat their competitors and win the race, well and good. I cannot see any essential difference between that and supplying the goods, with the agreed handicap, to Government Departments. The difference is that if they go into the ordinary field of commerce they must employ large sales and advertising forces which they may not always be able to staff from among the disabled themselves, whereas if they are selling to a Government Department they are relieved of those overheads. I think that this business of a fair price might be settled on that basis.

Mr. Wood: The last suggestion which I made has in my opinion some merit, although it still has some disadvantages. The last disadvantage is that it involves a hidden subsidy. Some people might feel that if we are to help in this way we ought to try to do it by means of direct subsidies. The difficulty of helping by direct subsidies is that if we give a sheltered workshop or Remploy a direct subsidy for these purposes there is no guarantee that it will be used in lowering the prices and there is therefore no greater certainty that more orders will result from that subsidy than were obtained before. The effect of the direct subsidy would be to weaken the healthy effects of competition.
I give the Committee an undertaking and an assurance that these suggestions are at present being examined by the Departments concerned. I am certain that the Committee feels it essential to ensure that any action which the Government take results in more orders for priority suppliers. It is not much good the Government taking action if the priority suppliers find that their contracts and orders do not increase. It is therefore extremely important that we should carry out detailed investigations to discover why, in the past, orders have been


missed and have not been secured by the priority suppliers and also to investigate the likely effect of the measures which have been suggested.
I am certain that in their financial support for Remploy, which has caused no contention at all between successive Governments, the Government are on the right lines. I am also willing, as I said earlier, to examine other projects for capital expenditure in sheltered workshops where a need can clearly be presented. I am also, as I have been trying to explain to the Committee, looking at ways in which priority suppliers might be helped to secure more Government orders. I hope also that improved employment prospects generally will help the disabled more easily to find jobs.
There are two other steps which the Government want to take to help the disabled more easily to return to old jobs or to find new ones. The Government have attached, and do attach, the greatest importance to industrial rehabilitation units—I.R.Us. There are now 15 of them and they give courses of industrial rehabilitation to 10,000 people a year. During last winter—although it has declined a little between March and June of this year—there was a considerable increase in the waiting lists for I.R.Us., largely due to the slacker employment situation, but also due to the growing recognition by the medical profession and others of the value of industrial rehabilitation.
The hon. Member for Whitehaven was one of the hon. Members who mentioned this. The Committee knows that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced last week that detailed planning work is to begin for the building and equipment of an experimental comprehensive rehabilitation and assessment centre on the lines suggested by the Piercy Committee at the Belvidere Hospital in East Glasgow.
The other thing I should like to tell the Committee tonight is that the Government have decided also that work on the necessary alterations to the existing Government training centre premises at Perivale will begin at once so that a new industrial rehabilitation unit to serve north-west London and relieve pressure on the Egham centre can be opened early in 1960.
The Committee will agree that when these two new industrial rehabilitation units are in operation there will certainly be a very great improvement. It will then be possible to cater for an additional 1,200 applicants each year. This increased provision is likely to reduce the present waiting lists considerably.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £14,379,000 (including a Supplementary sum of £20,000). be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1960, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Labour and National Service, including expenses in connection with employment exchanges and the inspection of factories; expenses, including grants and loans, in connection with employment services, training, transfer, rehabilitation and resettlement; a grant in aid of the Industrial Training Council; expenses in connection with national service; repayment of loan charges in respect of employment schemes; expenses of the Industrial Court; a subscription to the International Labour Organisation; and sundry other services.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House this day, forthwith to put severally the Questions, That the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the several Classes of the Civil Estimates, including a Supplementary Estimates, and the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the Estimates for Revenue Departments, and the Ministry of Defence Estimate, and in the Navy, the Army, and the Air Estimates, including a Supplementary Estimate for Air Services, be granted for the Services defined in those Classes and Estimates:

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1959–60

CLASS I

That a sum, not exceeding £11,666,693, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—



£


1. House of Lords
137,539


2. House of Commons
1,032,238


3. Registration of Electors
390,000


4. Treasury and Subordinate Departments
2,164,076


5. Privy Council Office
25,574


6. Charity Commission
81,270


7. Civil Service Commission
336,133


8. Crown Estate Office
96,049


9. Exchequer and Audit Department
354,970

£


10. Friendly Societies Registry
63,291


11. Government Actuary
22,473


12. Government Chemist (Revised sum)
—34,625


13. Government Hospitality
40,000


14. The Royal Mint
90


15. Natioal Debt Office
90


16. National Savings Committee
801,400


17. Public Record Office
90,661


18. Public Works Loan Commission
90


19. Royal Commissions, &c.
198,300


20. Secret Service
4,600,000


21. Tithe Redemption Commission
90


22. Miscellaneous Expenses (including a Supplementary sum of £60,000)
152,660


22A. Repayments to the Civil Contin gencies Fund
65,188


Scotland:—


23. Scottish Home Department (including a Supplementary sum of £10,000)
1,023,139


24. Scottish Record Office
25,997



11,666,693

Question put and agreed to.

CLASS II

That a sum, not exceeding £64,605,232, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—



£


1. Foreign Service
8,837,710


2. Foreign Office Grants and Services (including a Supplementary sum of £2,540,850)
12,244,455


3. British Council
2,168,100


5. Commonwealth Services
6,429,311


6. Oversea Settlement
128,725


8. Colonial Services (including a Supplementary sum of £10,020)
16,440,200


9. Development and Welfare (Colonies, &c.)
16,700,000


10. Development and Welfare (Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, and South African High Commission Territories)
849,000


11. Imperial War Graves Commission
807,731



64,605,232

Question put and agreed to.

CLASS III

That a sum, not exceeding £65,593,675, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—



£


1. Home Office (including a Supplementary sum of £500,000)
5,076,980


2. Home Office (Civil Defence Services)
4,131,375


3. Police, England and Wales
34,433,066


4. Prisons England and Wales
9,932,346


5. Child Care, England and Wales
2,200,900

£


6. Fire Services, England and Wales
557,350


7. Carlisle State Management District
90


8. Supreme Court of Judicature, etc.
23,904


9. County Courts
25,480


10. Legal Aid Fund
796 336


11. Land Registry
90


12. Public Trustee
90


13. Law Charges
466,589


14. Miscellaneous Legal Expenses
21,800


Scotland:—


15. Scottish Home Department (Civil Defence Services)
510,303


16. Police
5,284,191


17. Prisons
1,000,576


18. Approved Schools
204,075


19. Fire Services
82,818


20. State Management Districts
90


21. Law Charges and Courts of Law (including a Supplementary sum of £1,500)
218,791


22. Department of the Registers of Scotland
90


Ireland:—


23. Supreme Court of Judicature, etc., Northern Ireland
47,285


24. Irish Land Purchase Services
579,060



65,593,675

Question put and agreed to.

CLASS IV

That a sum, not exceeding £142,651,962, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1960, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—



£


1. Ministry of Education
72,243,300


2. British Museum
377,843


3. British Museum (Natural History)
304,016


4. Imperial War Museum
33,359


5. London Museum
26,116


6. National Gallery
47,347


7. Tate Gallery
37,480


8. National Maritime Museum
42,583


9. National Portrait Gallery
21,753


10. Wallace Collection
27,744


11. Grants for Science and the Arts (including a Supplementary sum of £2,600)
764,993


12. Universities and Colleges, &c., Great Britain
32,998,640


13. Broadcasting (including a Supplementary sum of £1,650,000)
26,745,000


Scotland:—


14. Scottish Education Department
8,855,719


15. National Galleries (including a Supplementary sum of £37,500)
68,700


16. National Museum of Antiquities
12,890


17. National Library
44,479



142,651,962

Question put and agreed to.

CLASS V

That a sum, not exceeding £783,818,078, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class V of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—



£


1. Ministry of Housing and Local Government
14,305,335


2. Housing, England and Wales
48,416,670


3. Exchequer Grants to Local Revenues, England and Wales
298,600,000


4. Ministry of Health
17,087,485


5. National Health Service, England and Wales
312,839,810


6. Medical Research Council
2,118,250


7. Registrar General's Office
307,673


8. War Damage Commission
270,000


Scotland:—


9. Department of Health
3,460,450


10. National Health Service
. 40,085,155


11. Housing
9,821,300


12. Exchequer Grants to Local Revenues
36,467,000


13. Registrar General's Office
38,950



783,818,078

Question put and agreed to.

CLASS VI

That a sum, not exceeding £168,304,187, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—



£


1. Board of Trade
3,486,282


2. Board of Trade (Assistance to Industry and Trading Services) (including a Supplementary sum of£20)
1,363,115


3. Board of Trade (Former Strategic Stocks)
757,000


4. Services in Development Areas
5,000,000


5. Financial Assistance in Development and Other Areas
2,807,500


6. Export Credits
90


7. Export Credits (Special Guarantees)
63,000


8. Registration of Restrictive Trading Agreements
127,090


10. Ministry of Supply (including a Supplementary sum of £300,020)
148,600,020


11. Ministry of Supply (Purchasing (Repayment) Services)
90


12. Royal Ordnance Factories
6,100,000



168,304,187

Question put and agreed to.

CLASS VII

That a sum, not exceeding £53,812,480, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for Expenditure in

respect of the Services included in Class VII of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—



£


1. Ministry of Works
5,280,000


2. Houses of Parliament Buildings
230,500


3. Public Buildings, etc., United Kingdom (including a Supplementary sum of £10)
20,417,010


4. Public Buildings Overseas
2 377,000


5. Royal Palaces
403,000


6. Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens
600,000


7. Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments
720,000


8. Rates on Government Property
12,703,880


9. Stationery and Printing
9,096,100


10. Central Office of Information (including a Supplementary sum of £99,990)
1,984,990



53,812,480

Question put and agreed to.

CLASS VIII

That a sum, not exceeding £26,021,118, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VIII of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—



£


3. Agricultural and Food Services (including a Supplementary sum of £60,000)
6,245,980


4. Food (Strategic Reserves)
1,000,000


5. Fishery Grants and Services
4,342,385


6. Surveys of Great Britain, etc.
2,267,150


7. Agricultural Research Council (Revised sum)
3,122,910


8. Nature Conservancy
241,000


9. Development Fund
689,600


10. Forestry Commission
6,470,000


Scotland:—


12. Fisheries (Scotland) and Herring Industry
1,642,093



26,021,118

Question put and agreed to.

CLASS IX

That a sum, not exceeding £143,336,357, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IX of the Civil Estimates, viz:—



£


1. Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (including a Supplementary sum of £3,820)
7,442,520


2. Roads, &c., England and Wales
62,231,810


3. Transport (Shipping and Special Services)
347,780


4. Civil Aviation
5,742,500


5. Ministry of Power
2,726,220


6. Ministry of Power (Special Services) (including a Supplementary sum of £3,500,000)
6,224,110


7. Atomic Energy
42,697,810

£


8. Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (Revised sum) Scotland:—
7,021,097


Scotland:—


9. Roads, &c.
8,902,510



143,336,357

Question put and agreed to.

CLASS X

That a sum, not exceeding £402,428,720, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1960, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class X of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—



£


1. Superannuation and Retired Allowances
12,323,000


2. Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance
3,057,060


3. War Pensions, &c. (including a Supplementary sum of £1,255,000)
64,852,250


4. National Insurance and Family Allowances
204,626,000


5. National Assistance Board (including a Supplementary sum of £18,000,000)
112,713,000


6. Pensions, &c. (India, Pakistan and Burma)
4205,410


7. Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions, &c.
652,000


Total for Civil Estimates
402,428,720

Question put and agreed to.

ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1959–60

That a sum, not exceeding £280,802,100, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1960, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in the Estimates for Revenue Departments, viz.:—



£


1. Customs and Excise
11,954,100


2. Inland Revenue
30,708,000


3. Post Office
238,140,000



280,802,100

Question put and agreed to.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1959–60

That a sum, not exceeding £11,657,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Defence; expenses in connection with International Defence Organisations, including

international subscriptions; and certain grants in aid.

Question put and agreed to.

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1959–60

That a sum, not exceeding £226,793,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services, viz.:—



£


3. Medical Establishments and Services
1,526,000


4. Civilians employed on Fleet Services
7,741,000


5. Educational Services
1,483,000


7. Royal Naval Reserves
1,140,000


8. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c:—



Section I.—Personnel
43,585,000


Section II.—Matériel
41,091000


Section III.—Contract Work
97,939,000


9. Naval Armaments
22,929,000


12. Admiralty Office
9,359,000



226,793,000

Question put and agreed to.

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1959–60

That a sum, not exceeding £117,610,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for, Expenditure in respect of the Army Services viz.:—



£


3. War Office
3,880,000


4. Civilians
87,140,000


5. Movements
26,590,000



117,610,000

Question put and agreed to.

AIR ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1959–60

That a sum, not exceeding £132,035,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for Expenditure in respect of the Air Services, viz.:—



£


3. Air Ministry
5,570,000


4. Civilians at Outstations
37,990,000


5. Movements
12,180,000


6. Supplies
63,030,000


9. Miscellaneous Effective Services (Supplementary sum)
15,000


10. Non-Effective Services
13,250,000



132,035,000

Question put and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

WAYS AND MEANS

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, the sum of £2,814,085,357 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.—[Mr. Simon.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow;

Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

COTTON INDUSTRY (REORGANISATION SCHEMES)

9.35 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir David Eccles): I beg to move,
That the Cotton Doubling Reorganisation Scheme (Confirmation) Order, 1959, a draft of which was laid before this House on 13th July, be approved.
This, and the two other Cotton Reorganisation Schemes Orders relating to spinning and weaving, for which we are asking approval this evening, were laid, two on 13th July and one on 16th July. I should like to thank the House for its indulgence in debating them after so short an interval. I think it will be for the convenience of hon. Members if I describe these Schemes as economically as I can, and if the House asks for further information I will do my best to give it at the end of this debate.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House recognised the need for speed and drive when they accepted an Amendment in Committee to give retrospective validity to the work of the Cotton Board before the Bill became law. The Cotton Board has pressed on with that work with remarkable success, and we now have before us, prepared in only twelve weeks since this plan was first discussed in this House, three Schemes drawn up independently to meet the requirements of the spinning, doubling and weaving sections. These three sections of the industry form the first stage in the manufacture of the finished cotton product, and we shall not be losing anything if we put them into effect in advance of the

finishers' schemes which we expect to consider in the autumn.
The preparation of the three Schemes which are now before us in so short a time reflects very great credit on the Committee of the Cotton Board which had charge of this work, and also on Mr. Burney, the accountant at the Cotton Board, and his staff. It is literally true to say that they have worked night and day against the Parliamentary clock in order to get these reorganisation Schemes ready so that they would not be held up by the interval of the Summer Recess. Owing, no doubt, to the pressure under which they were making their calculations, I have to apologise to the House for a mistake in Article 9 of the Spinning Scheme, which was only discovered after the Order had been printed. To avoid the delay of reprinting it at this time, I hope hon. Members will think that it was sufficient to issue a corrigendum slip. The mistake involved a wrong calculation affecting a small number of carding engines and in no way raised any matter of principle.
As the House is aware, the Board of Trade may only confirm a reorganisation scheme if certain conditions have been fulfilled. In the first place, I must be satisfied that an agreement to compensate labour displaced has been made. The employers and the trade unions told me that they had agreed the terms of such compensation, and in brief these are at rates which depend on the recipient's age and on his or her previous earnings, and the money will be payable as to half in a lump sum and half in weekly payments. The terms will apply to everyone in respect of earnings up to £2,000 a year. The money to pay this compensation will be collected by levy on the section and administered by a central agency. I think that that is important, because it means that the compensation payments will not be the responsibility of any one firm but will be the responsibility of the section as a whole.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I am extremely reluctant to interrupt the Minister so early in his speech, but as he is dealing with this point, may I deal with the Textile Officials Association, with which the right hon. Gentleman had had correspondence? I know that the right hon. Gentleman realises that


this is a separate and special point of difficulty and that superannuation questions are involved, but would it not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman, busy though I know he is at the moment, to find a few minutes to discuss this problem with the union, because it is not represented and has not been consulted to any great extent?

Sir D. Eccles: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. If the representative of the Association cares to come to see me—

Mr. Hale: I am sure that he will.

Sir D. Eccles: —I will listen to what he has to say. As a matter of principle, I felt that it was not reasonable that terms which had been accepted by the operatives should be very different and improved for the salaried people. I thought that the basis ought to be the same, but I am very willing to see the representative of the Association.

Mr. Hale: I am most grateful.

Sir D. Eccles: The trade unions told me last week that, while they naturally would have liked to get more for their members, they had accepted the compensation terms after considerable improvements had been made during the negotiations. I am therefore able to say that the conditions relating to the compensation of displaced workpeople have been fulfilled.
The Act also requires me to be satisfied that the schemes make adequate provision for the elimination of excess capacity in point of time and in point of quantity. The time schedule in each of the three Orders is the same. The starting date is 30th July, if the House approves the Orders, and applications for compensation for scrapping must be made within the participation period of two months. After 30th September it will be too late to apply. The scrapping itself must be completed by 31st March, 1960. Any machines which are accepted for scrapping and are not scrapped by that date may become the property of the Cotton Board. The Cotton Board will also have power to grant an extension of the scrapping period in particular cases, but it proposes to do so only in the most exceptional circumstances where very good reasons can be advanced by the firm in

question. We cannot allow anything in the nature of an option to scrap or not to scrap according to how the trade looks next spring.
The House will have observed that the Schemes prescribe minimum figures which the applications must reach before compensation becomes payable, namely, six million mule equivalent spindles in the spinning section, 400,000 spindles in the doubling section, and 45,000 looms in the weaving section. If this minimum response is not forthcoming in any particular case, then that Scheme will not become effective.
In round terms, the achievement of these figures will eliminate the capacity in the three sections which was idle on 23rd April, taking into account the fact that a proportion of installed capacity must normally be kept in reserve for production or for maintenance reasons. This will have a very beneficial effect on the industry. However, the figures are only minima. The Cotton Board has good hopes that they will be considerably exceeded in practice.
The minimum figures look low, but, as I think I can show, there is no straight comparison between them and the Estimates in the White Paper. For example, the White Paper gave 12 million spindles and 70,000 looms as estimates of excess capacity. Those were very rough calculations prepared before detailed study. The figures for looms and for the doubling sections, for instance, proved very wide of the mark, when they were taken to pieces and looked at. None the less, the practical problem, the one which will interest the House this evening, is now effectively to reach figures of elimination which will do the job we have in mind.
The Cotton Board decided, and I agreed, that we should adopt as a signal for starting a scheme the minimum figure of scrapping which would be of real benefit to the section. It would very much strengthen the cotton industry if we were to have only that amount of capacity out once and for all. Of course, we aim at considerably higher figures for scrapping. The Cotton Board advises me that the best way to get additional machines out would be to offer a bonus of 5 per cent. for early application so that the minimum would soon be reached and an announcement could soon be


made to the effect that the Scheme was to come into operation.
It may be asked why it is so important that a quick announcement should be made that the Schemes are to come into operation and compensation for scrapping will be paid. The reason is a very practical one, and I think I may say a very human one. We know that there are many firms which do not wish to declare their readiness to go out of business unless they can be assured that the Scheme for their section is definitely going through. That is the reason that the Cotton Board has designed the participation period and the minimum figures to suit the facts of this complicated industry and to suit the anxieties of the people in Lancashire who now have to make some difficult decisions. Having given that explanation, I very much hope that no one will argue this evening that, as the figures of 6 million for spindles and 45,000 for looms are lower than any of us would wish to see as the level of elimination, these re-organisation Schemes are bad. As a matter of fact, our chief task is to attract the man who is still unsure whether to scrap or not. We must, as soon as we possibly can, give him a firm basis on which to make up his mind one way or the other.
I turn now to the compensation arrangements set out in Part II of the Orders. They are necessarily rather complicated, but I think that the drafters of the Orders have done a good job in making them as understandable as such things can be. Each Scheme follows the same broad pattern of providing three basic rates, premium, standard and discount. The premium rate is for firms which choose to go out of business altogether. The Cotton Board considered it right to offer such firms a more attractive incentive, bearing in mind the problems, such as the disposing of stocks and spares, which are involved when a firm closes down altogether.
The standard rate will, in general, be for firms which close down complete individual mills, without going out of business, or which scrap machinery which was in operation at the time the Government's proposals were announced in April.
A lower or discount rate will be payable for units which had closed down before 23rd April, or for machinery

which was already idle, but it will be payable only where that capacity could be brought back into production without undue difficulty and expense. We cannot have some one who has had machinery out of action for twenty years coming along and claiming compensation.
There are certain differences of detail between the three schemes. These reflect the different circumstances of the individual sections concerned. I will mention three. First, the premium rate is 25 per cent. for all three schemes, but the discount rate is 25 per cent. below the standard rate for spinning and doubling but only 20 per cent. below the standard rate for the weavers. The reason for that is that in the Weaving Scheme, unlike the others, there is a difference made throughout between active and stopped looms, the latter rate being 25 per cent. below the former, so we get a discount in that way as well as through the discount rate.
The second difference is that whereas in the case of the Weaving and Doubling Schemes compensation is based on one main description of machine and is payable "per loom" and "per spindle", in the case of the Spinning Scheme, compensation is related to two descriptions of machines, namely, spindles or carding engines. This is because in the spinning section it was found better and fairer to split the compensation between the spindle and the preparatory machinery. The slightly more favourable terms which are offered when combers are also scrapped are designed to even out the treatment of mills spinning higher quality products and using, therefore, more preparatory machinery. Splitting the compensation in this way does not increase it: it is simply a fairer basis for assessing it.
The third difference is that, unlike the other two Schemes, no provision is made in the Doubling Scheme for treating stopped spindles differently from active ones. The reason for this is that a doubling mill requires a considerable number of different types of spindle for different types of work and what is idle one week may be active the next and vice versa. In these circumstances, it was thought inappropriate to differentiate between active and idle plant.
Before I leave the question of compensation payments, I should like to


draw the attention of the House to the "refund" provisions in Article 13. These require a firm to repay three-quarters of the compensation received in cases where the capacity which has been eliminated is later replaced with the aid of the re-equipment grant. We decided that for this reason. The purpose of the re-equipment grant is to stimulate the modernisation and replacement of the remaining capacity after the short phase of elimination has been completed. We are only allowing six months for this scrapping to be done. After that will come the great bulk of the re-equipment.
I have asked the Cotton Board to try to assess the cost of these Schemes.

Mr. H. Rhodes: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves this point of compensation, would he be kind enough to explain the difference in the price that will be paid for scrapping to a firm which has a ring mill and a firm which has a mule spindle mill, because this is on the basis of mule equivalent and I think that it would be as well at this juncture if the right hon. Gentleman would explain how the difference will look?

Sir D. Eccles: There is an established relationship between mule spindles and ring spindles, but if the ring spindles are in a mill which is closing down altogether and are good machines, the hon. Member will observe that the Cotton Board can permit the firm concerned to sell its ring spindles, but in respect of those, of course, it does not get any compensation.

Mr. Rhodes: I am talking about what the right hon. Gentleman was talking about, the compensation paid for scrapping. What I want to know is whether compensation will be paid to a firm scrapping ring spindles.

Sir D. Eccles: There is a relationship established by the Cotton Board between the two, and if the hon. Gentleman wants to have Mr. Burney's views on that, I will let him have them.
I was saying that I had asked the Cotton Board to try to assess the cost of the Schemes. Their best guess is that the total cost of achieving the minimum figures of scrapping may be about £7½ million, of which the Government contribution would be about £5 million.

That would roughly be the cost on the basis that we achieve the minimum figures and no more, but of course we hope, and expect, to go a good deal further than that. In so far as more machines are scrapped, the cost will go up, but that will be worth while.
The reorganisation Schemes constitute the first phase of bringing about a more efficient industry and I contemplate that the arrangements for the re-equipment grants will be introduced once the response to the three Schemes is such that the minimum figures for applications are reached and compensation for scrapped machinery becomes payable. The Board of Trade and the Cotton Board are already giving close attention to the conditions to be applied to the re-equipment grants so that when the time comes we can act without delay.
I can now tell the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) that the relationship between a mule spindle and a ring spindle is roughly as 1½ to one, which I happened to have forgotten.
I conclude by saying that I have never seen a better piece of work done in an industrial negotiation than has been done by the Cotton Board's Committee. One must remember that the men who did this are not in the cotton industry but are people who came from outside. I pay a most sincere tribute to the way they have succeeded in getting such a vast number of firms to come together in these Schemes. I think that that must be considered a good omen for the constructive part of our plan which begins after the elimination is over. One cannot but be impressed by the goodwill and sense of responsibility towards the industry as a whole shown by both the employers and the trade unions ever since the Government first said that they were willing to help with financial aid.
Lancashire has always been known as a county where the people were resilient and where they showed good sense and good humour. In the last six months, I have had a most exceptional chance to see those qualities in action. It is the character of the people who work in this industry rather than the cash which the Government are to provide which makes me confident that we are on the threshold of a new chapter in one of our most famous industries.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I think that it has been agreed that with this Motion we should discuss the other two Motions—
That the Cotton Spinning Reorganisation Scheme (Confirmation) Order, 1959, a draft of which was laid before this House on 16th July, be approved.
That the Cotton Weaving Reorganisation Scheme (Confirmation) Order, 1959, a draft of which was laid before this House on 13th July, be approved.

9.59 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: These three Orders involve the expenditure of considerable sums of public money and I hope, therefore, that you will bear with me, Sir, if I briefly restate our main criticisms to the Act so that the House can get our attitude to these Orders into proper perspective. I will do it very briefly.
Our main objections to the Act were fourfold. In the first place, we were disturbed that public money was being spent without there being any effective share in the control of the industry, and we are a little alarmed at the growing tendency for private industries to join the long queue for national assistance. We take the view that as we pay the piper we might at least decide the key in which the tune will be played.
Our second objection was that we had some doubts about the response which was likely from the industry to the proposals that the Government made. Thirdly, we were disturbed that the industry might be reorganised without proper regard to the social consequences that might result. Finally, there was the strongly-held view expressed from these benches that part at least of the money should be reinvested in the textile areas to provide alternative employment.
However, in spite of the criticisms that I have expressed, and the fact that we had many Divisions during the Committee and Report stages, we did not vote against either the Second or Third Reading of the Bill. We now come to consider Orders applying decisions of the House that were taken at that time. No doubt we shall all be influenced in our attitude to the Orders by the knowledge that they appear to have been accepted as fair throughout the industry.
I should like to begin by commenting on two of the right hon. Gentleman's

observations. He told us that the scheme for the finishing end of the industry would come before the House during the autumn. Can he say how many schemes there will be? Originally it was suggested in the Press that there were to be eight sectional schemes, spinning, weaving, doubling, condenser spinning, bleaching, printing, piece dyeing and yarn dyeing. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether the number remains at eight or whether it has been reduced, as I suspect is probably the case.
Secondly, I should like to comment on the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the compensation scheme for the operatives. We are glad to know that substantial improvements have been made to the basic tentative agreement originally drawn up, and we hope that some of the discussions that we had in the House helped during those negotiations.
If I may turn to the Orders in general, I join the President of the Board of Trade in paying tribute to the speed with which the Committee of the Cotton Board has worked. Even if we have some doubts about the Schemes, the Committee has obviously been extremely efficient and very quick in the work that it has done. I think the President was right to congratulate the members on their remarkable success.
The figures of compensation are very much what was anticipated at the time, but it is not without interest to notice that the break-up value of some of these firms appears to be much greater than the Stock Exchange value of their shares. That is a point on which I think some of my right hon. and hon. Friends will comment later.
We must not close our eyes to the fact that, as the right hon. Gentleman admitted, the basic minima in the three Schemes are roughly equal to the number of machines already stopped. If we are paying public money to compensate employers who have already had to stop their machines, it seems to me that we are not getting a very good bargain. In other words, I think that the three scales of compensation, and the 5 per cent. bonus if the decision is taken before the end of August, are ingenious and should be welcomed. It may be that they will


have the effect of ensuring that the basic minima are exceeded by a considerable margin.
Nevertheless, we have certain misgivings about the response there will be, and whether the right hon. Gentleman's bait will work. So long as it is not known whether compensation will be paid, it is quite clear, as the right hon. Gentleman admitted, that firms will hesitate to put their cards on the table. It is obviously extremely unattractive, particularly in the middle of a minor boom in the industry, to propose shutting down the whole or part of a firm if the compensation which justifies the proposal is not guaranteed. A number of firms will be in great difficulty in that account.
Once a firm has declared its intention of closing down in whole or in part its order book will tend to fall away, and it will be difficult for it to retrace its steps if it decides to change its mind. I very much hope that the industry will not be too influenced by the present boom which is going on. We have heard too often in the past that it was impossible to do things that should have been done because times were bad, and when times have been good we have been told that it was not necessary to do them. The industry will have to get away from that attitude in mind and face the new situation which has been created.
What will happen if only the basic minima are reached? I have found it a little disturbing to hear from the President of the Board of Trade how wide of the mark some of the original estimates have been, and it is a little surprising to find that in the case of spinning the basic minimum is only half the estimate of surplus capacity which was drawn up by the Federation of Master Cotton Spinners Associations. It seems that if half the excess capacity remains in use the Scheme will clearly not be as effective as would otherwise be the case.
It does not follow that the reorganisation Scheme would be bad, but it would be difficult to justify the expenditure of public money if it were not being used more effectively than that. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman noted the views of the Manchester Guardian on 14th July, when it said:
If the schemes are to be worth while, and if the Government is to be justified in paying

grants from public funds, for modernisation and re-equipment, a much more radical pruning will have to be achieved.
There is another doubt. If a basic minimum is reached in one section but not in another, what happens? Let us suppose that it is reached in the case of weaving but not in spinning. It would seem that in that case the excess capacity in the spinning section would be relatively greater than it was before. Although, as the Financial Times has said, that is perhaps unlikely, it is nevertheless possible. I should like the President of the Board of Trade to tell the House what would be the views of the Government and the Cotton Board in a situation of that kind.
Finally, this is not an occasion which can give any of us cause for rejoicing. We must hope that these Schemes will reinvigorate the. industry. We hope that they will lead to a streamlining of organisation and to improvements in de sign and in merchanting, but whether they do depends largely on the industry itself. We all hope that our misgivings and doubts are without foundation, and that the mistakes of the past have been put irrevocably behind us. We, for our part, shall continue to watch the progress of the industry with anxiety and the welfare of its workers with solicitude.
I know that all Lancashire Members will appreciate the tribute paid by the right hon. Gentleman to the character of the workers in the textile industry. They have made an incomparable contribution to our commercial greatness in the past, and we must see to it that in the years ahead they are given further opportunities, through the provision of new industries as well as through the preservation of the cotton industry, to prove their skill and enterprise, and their devotion to the welfare of the country.

10.10 p.m.

Sir John Barlow: All hon. Members on this side of the House who represent Lancashire constituencies welcome these Statutory Instruments and the speed with which they have been made. Many of us have pressed for a long time for some such measure as this to be taken for the cotton industry. Many of us foresaw two possibilities. One was an organised reduction such as the Scheme we have before us, and the other was the old-fashioned laissez faire system of letting


the weakest, or some of them, go to the wall. Many of us welcome this as an ordered reduction carried out in a sensible way to meet the requirements of modern world conditions.
Undoubtedly, there are a number of difficulties which will arise. It is important that an adequate number of machines of every kind should be eliminated. It has already been pointed out that the temporary upsurge in the industry may well be a flash in the pan, but it may prove very misleading to some people in the industry. It is well known to people in all sections of the industry that the demand over the last two years has been exceptionally low and the supply in the pipeline from the spinner to the shop also has been exceptionally low. There were a variety of reasons for this. Some people wanted to keep their stocks to a minimum. There was also the credit squeeze, and for a number of reasons those who kept their stocks low the whole way through the pipeline have benefited for a considerable period. Then suddenly we had wonderful weather before Whitsuntide and the demand for frocks was unprecedented in the last two or three years.
Owing to the minimum quantities in the pipeline there has been an unexpected upsurge recently, but I and many others think that it is only of a temporary nature. It may prove very misleading to some managements and shareholders who think it likely to continue. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned that this may prove a difficulty which should not be overlooked.
Another possibility which may prove a difficulty is the difference between the outlook of management and shareholders. I can visualise a number of companies where the management may include directors and executives who are approaching 60 years of age and who have good jobs with pensions in the offing. There may be funds in the bank and they could well carry on during the rest of their working lives. It might pay them well to do so. On the other hand, it may be very much to the advantage of shareholders to opt in and take advantage of this offer from the Gov-

ernment. I urge shareholders to examine this matter very carefully and to see that their interests coincide with the interests of the management. If there is any doubt, it would be quite easy for them to consult outside accountants, or other outside authorities, to discover where their benefit lies.
Here we are dealing with three sections of the industry. I am not sure how many more sections it is visualised shall come in. In certain quarters, it has been suggested that there is not too much finishing machinery and it might be unnecessary to have the Schemes which originally were thought necessary. I am not familiar with all the finishing sections, but I have a slight experience of the printing section. There are about 250 expensive machines with all their ancillary equipment, and probably there is work for little more than half of that number. It would be most unfortunate if anyone in authority gained the idea that there was not a surplus of these machines. For that reason, it is most important that the Cotton Board and its representatives should push on with the other sections and not sit back, having done a very good job up to date.
The Board has accomplished a wonderful job of work in a very short time. There may be minor criticisms, but, by and large, we are all agreed that it did a very fine job. I therefore hope that it will not sit back and think that it has done all that is necessary. There is still considerable work before it in the finishing sections, and for that reason I hope that it will press on and complete what began as a very good job indeed.
I congratulate the Government on introducing this new Scheme. Some of us have pressed for this, or something like this, for years—

Mr. John McCann: Not very hard.

Sir J. Barlow: The hon. Member says "Not very hard", but perhaps he does not know how some of us have been pressing for it for a very long time. At last, we are achieving something substantial, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and the Government on doing it with such speed.

10.16 p.m.

Mr. H. Rhodes: Following up what was said by the President of the Board of Trade, and his reply to the question I asked him about ring spindles, it would appear from the machinery activity figures that, at the end of June, there were 2½ million ring spindles not working. That being the case, if what the President of the Board of Trade hopes for comes about, it will mean that 2½ million ring spindles are to be scrapped, as well as the 4½ million mule spindles standing at the end of June. What I ask the President is this. Is it to be Board of Trade policy to scrap ring spindles simply because they are not running, in preference to mules, which are?
Compliments have been paid to the Cotton Board and those associated with it about speed, but they remind me, at any rate, of something that Dr. Johnson once said, if I can think of it. It was that if a man is to be hanged on the morrow, it concentrates his thoughts wonderfully. If anybody can correct me on that, I shall be glad. [Hon. MEMBERS: "His mind."] That is the case. An urgent job needed to be done, and we in this House have had different opinions as to how it should be done. It all depends on how the circumstances suit us. Very often it all depends on whether we are talking to suit our own ends, does it not?
Here we have the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) talking about an orderly reduction. He is a man who believes in private enterprise, who has always believed that the articles which one makes will be dictated by their profitability or by the rate at which one can borrow the money to make them, and here he is—and I quote him—talking about making an orderly reduction. I hope he will never be a protagonist of the sort of private enterprise that I support, because, if so, I shall have to take him to task about it. I believe that private enterprise should enterprise, and that, if we are supposed to be working an economy on that basis, it should do its job or get out.
If an industry comes to the House for money to put its affairs in order it must listen to what is said, even by people who perhaps do not understand adequately all the pros and cons of the

matter but nevertheless have to think in terms of how much they will vote to put the industry on its feet.
When I was chairman of a local authority, we used to spend more time deliberating whether to put up a new lamp than we did when spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on, say, a sewerage scheme. Now we are proposing to vote £30 million, and we should think of it in terms of the larger issues involved. I will deal with one or two of them and also with a few of the details which I would like the trade to consider while making up its mind on the Scheme.
I shall not condemn it in a wholesale manner, as I have done up to now when we have been discussing this matter, except to say that I am against giving public money to private enterprise which has not been able to put its own house in order over the years and which can afford to do most of the assisting for itself. Why has it not done so before? It has made plenty of profits since the war. I do not need to go through the rigmarole, as I have done in Committee, of quoting firms which have done very fairly and which still have vast reserves. I do not want to waste the time of the House. Private enterprise still has plenty of money in the kitty, but it has not had the confidence to put in the new machinery required to put the industry in order.
Why is that? Is it because it has no confidence in the industry or that the machines it proposes to buy have not passed muster for productivity? I spend a great part of my time when away from this House in thinking in terms of what a machine acquired from any part of the world will do on a given area of floor space, and in working out the economics of it—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member seems to be giving us his view on matters which are covered by the Act, which lays down the principles on which these Orders are made. The House would be obliged to the hon. Gentleman if he would confine his attention to the schemes before us.

Mr. Rhodes: I must contend, Mr. Speaker, that the Schemes enable the cotton industry to draw money.

Mr. Speaker: That point was conceded when the House passed the Bill.

Mr. Rhodes: Well, Sir, I disagree. I do not think so. I think that so long as there is an opportunity to put a case about the spending of money for whatever purpose on a private industry, we should be able to do so. These Orders are more important than even the Act we passed a short time ago. These are the meat of that Act. Without the Act, of course, they would not be possible, but now they are before the House these are the important things.

Mr. Speaker: I agree with the hon. Member that these are the important things. From the point of view of order, they are the matters to which hon. Members must confine their remarks.

Mr. J. T. Price: On a point of order. When we were discussing the principles of the Act it was frequently said from the Government Front Bench that we should have an opportunity later to discuss the details when the Orders came before the House for ratification. Because we did not have the opportunity then, we are trying to get it now.

Mr. Speaker: Certainly the details of the Schemes are before us now, but the Act has been passed.

Mr. Rhodes: That may be true, but I respectfully point out that certain assumptions are made in these Orders, certain assumptions which have their basis in the amount of capacity which needs to be scrapped to achieve a certain result. It is implicit in every Order that it has as its basis an assumption that a given capacity is scrapped to put the industry on its feet.

Mr. Speaker: I think that is true; but, on the other hand, I think that assumption was agreed to by the House when it passed the Act.

Mr. Rhodes: Yes, but it does not alter the fact. Mr. Speaker, that the same principle applies. This subject begins with the assumption that a certain number of spindles will make this industry into an efficient industry. I should like to think that the reduction in spindles under these Orders assumed a different proportion. Instead of thinking in terms of a 12 million spindle reduction on the basis of mule equivalent, I should like to

think that we based the Orders on what really would put the industry into an efficient state.
I contend that if the industry had scrapped down to the basis of the new ring spindles it has put in since the war, it would not have gone too far. It has put in about 3 million spindles since the war. I contend that the programme for scrapping should go down to the most efficient machines which have been put in since the war, and that we should build up from that. On that sort of premise T think we should have arrived at a better result. It is assumed that the scrapping of 12 million spindles mule equivalent will put this industry into an efficient state. Will it? Personally I do not think so. Going back to the speech which Mr. Winterbottom made at the Cotton Board Conference at Harrogate, I think that 6½ million spindles, running shift, with a capacity of about 700 million lb. per year, would be nearer the mark.
What are we doing with these Orders? We are assuming that we have 24 million spindles, mule equivalent. At the end of June, 8 million of those spindles were idle. The 6 million spindles which we are giving as criterion for the Scheme to go forward is below the number of spindles which were idle at the end of June. If this is only a beginning and if it is only an inducement for the spinners in Lancashire to start scrapping, that is one thing, but to assert that the removal of the 6 million spindles will remove the surplus capacity in the industry is another and, in my opinion, is not correct. I should have been better pleased if the number of spindles to be scrapped had been higher. It has been fixed at 6 million. I hope that the position is fully realised.
I agree with the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich that a difficulty may occur with public companies which have directors who do not meet their shareholders as often as they should. The shareholders may not know what is going on and the directors may hold on to jobs to last their time out. I ask the President of the Board of Trade from now on to see that enough publicity is given through the newspapers or through any other means that he can use to point out to people interested in the cotton industry, including the shareholders, what are the issues, how they should be looking at them, and how they should


be weighing up whether it is in the interests of the company to remain in existence.
I have been making inquiries over the weekend and I find much bewilderment about what the Orders mean. Personally I do not find them bewildering—I think they are straightforward—but I know of many managements and many others connected with the trade who are uncertain about what they mean and what the implications are from them. The President has a firm of chartered accountants who have been given this job, and one of the principals has been seconded to the Board of Trade to work things out. At this juncture, if the President is wise, he will see that spinners, weavers and doublers in Lancashire have easy access to the offices of the Cotton Board—not merely to the Board itself or the officials, but to an enlarged organisation for the next few weeks.
Staff who understood the Scheme could be brought in so that a firm—bewildered, not quite understanding the Scheme and wondering what to do—could very quickly have its figures worked out. The calculation could be made on the basis of figures supplied by the firm—and surely people know what they have in their own factories. Their compensation could be worked out in that way along with the firm's own accountant. If the right hon. Gentleman were to do that, or if he were even to send round to the factories, on request, people qualified to explain all the details and the implications, it would be a good thing.
I would say to anyone in the spinning trade who was making up his mind whether to stop in or go out: "Just weigh up what your problems will be over the next few years if you stop in." I suppose that the trade's total yarn requirement is about 700 million lbs. I would say to the spinners—after making that point—that they cannot compete with old, written-down machinery against countries that are using new machinery on the basis of shift working; and if they put in new machinery they must run it two shifts, as a minimum, and preferably three; and that to put in new machinery at present and make a profit on it in the face of competition, the workers, if their shift is 38 hours a week, will be asked to take the same hourly rate as they are taking now for a 45-hour week.
I do not want to be misunderstood. I do not say that they should, but I do say that on the present productivity basis, unless the workers are prepared to work shifts on the same hourly basis that they are now paid for a 45-hour week, the machines put in will not pay, and they will not do it. I want my words to reach people who are uncertain whether to go out or to stop in, because unless they can fulfil that sort of criterion they might just as well get out—

Mr. McCann: My hon. Friend says that he wants his words to be clearly understood. Do I understand him to say that for working a 38-hour week the worker should get paid only at the same hourly rate as previously he got for 45 hours? In other words, that is asking the worker to work shifts and to take a reduction in his wages.

Mr. Rhodes: That is precisely why I was slow over this. I never said "should." I said that to make the machines economic the worker would need to—according to the employers.

Mr. McCann: Accept a reduction in wages?

Mr. Rhodes: Yes.

Mr. Arthur Holt: Is that, in fact, really what the hon. Gentleman said? I understood him to say that the man would have to keep to the same wage as he got for 45 hours. He did not say anything about "per hour."

Mr. Rhodes: I wish the hon. Gentleman would listen. I said "hourly rate." If one works 38 hours a week one draws the same rate of pay as if one has been working 45 hours a week. As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, at the moment one draws the 45-hour wage for a 48-hour week. Correct? Any more questions on that? It is so elementary.
A firm which is thinking in terms of going in, stopping in or going out must be able to get on two shifts 100 lbs. of yarn per spindle per year. The present rate of production on our spindles in Lancashire is between 45 and 60 lbs. Can a firm step it up to 100 lbs. a year? That is what an employer has got to ask himself—whether he is going to be able to compete against the Japanese 124 lbs. per spindle per year on a six-day week.
I think that the Orders should have a fair crack of the whip. I have made my protest pretty thoroughly in the past. This is the only opportunity for the Lancashire cotton industry to do something for itself. There is no alternative at the moment, and it is up to the people of Lancashire to support this effort and to try to make it work. It can be made to work if they do it thoroughly enough, if they are enthusiastic enough about what they really want and if they are not bemused by the temporary demand of the type about which we know in this last week or two.
That does not mean that they need not look forward to a reasonable amount of trade. The industry is not as dead as all that. But I think that, if over the next five years the industry has not taken full advantage of what has been offered to it by the end of September, perhaps an approach should be made on the basis of scrapping what is recognised throughout the world as the kind of productivity per spindle. I do not think that it is going to be achieved very quickly.
There may be a lot of difficulty in influencing people who should be tendering their resignations to do so, but if my words are of any influence at all in Lancashire I would say to them, "Get on with this job; do not delay. Times are pressing. The criterion is a minimum of 100 lbs. of cotton yarn per spindle." If the industry does not measure up to that, then it is going to have a difficult row to hoe. I ask Lancashire to get on with this and to see that it is made a success.

Sir J. Barlow: The hon. Gentleman referred to Mr. Winterbottom's important speech at Harrogate in which he suggested that the number of spindles should be reduced far more than is proposed as the minimum quantity here. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that at the present time Mr. Winterbottom is fully behind this Scheme and is satisfied that it has a reasonable chance of success?

Mr. Rhodes: Yes, I know all about that. I was talking to him yesterday.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I wish I had the practical knowledge to enable me to comment on the most interesting and sincere speech to which the House

has just listened. I do not want to address my remarks to the merits of the Schemes contained in these Orders. I want to address myself to the form of the Orders. I think hon. Members will agree with me that when Orders such as these come before the House we ought to look at them to see whether they are encroachments on the liberty of the subject in excess of what is necessary in order to enforce a scheme of this sort.
I find in Article 3 of each of these Orders a repetition of what has come to be a standard form of Article inserted in marketing schemes and schemes of this sort. This is not the first occasion on which I have objected to this Article. If hon. Members will refer to Article 3 of each of the Orders they will see that it states:
The Cotton Board may for the purposes of the said reorganisation scheme require by notice in writing any person carrying on business in the spinning section of the industry "—
I am reading the Spinning Order—
to furnish returns or other information relating to activities comprised in that section of the industry.…
—not in his own business but in that section of the industry. So by notice in writing the Cotton Board can call upon any person concerned in any of the industries dealt with in these Schemes to give information not about his own business only but about anybody else's business within the industry.
I am sure it is not the intention of my right hon. Friend to call upon businessmen to snoop upon other businessmen and give information about businesses in which they are not concerned. Yet again and again this form of Article appears in these Schemes, and I ask my right hon. Friend when he brings in other Orders, as I understand he will do, relating to other parts of this industry, to look again at this Article. It is unnecessarily wide and dangerous.
It may be said that the Department does not intend to use it for the purpose of insisting upon one businessman giving information about the whole industry and not merely about his own business, but it is so drafted. If it is intended merely to ask for information about the business of the person on whom the notice is served, the Article should say so and should not go so wide as it does. I hope that when it appears in other


Orders relating to these Schemes concerning this industry my right hon. Friend will have amended it so as to restrict it to the purpose for which he intends to use it.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Thornton: I hope the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his line of argument. I should like to refer to one point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes). As I understood him, the point that he emphasised was that in re-equipment the important factor was the productivity of the machines. I do not think for a moment my hon. Friend was suggesting that operatives should be called upon to work 38 hours on a shift system for less than a 45-hour-week wage. Even if that were a serious suggestion, there is not the faintest hope of the operatives and the unions agreeing.
In any case, even if it were morally justifiable, one must remember that the cotton textile industry is not a high-wage industry. For men, average earnings are roughly £11 10s. a week, whereas in the rest of British manufacturing industry average earnings for men are about £13 a week.

Mr. Rhodes: What I was doing was to point out the difficulties which lie ahead in the spending of money. I was not saying that they should—not at all—or that they would. But to make a competitive go of putting new machines in now, that is what the employers would want to happen, that wages should be reduced.

Mr. Thornton: I quite understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. I have taken it up only because I have heard employers express that other point of view, that operatives ought to work on a double shift system for thirty-eight forty-fifths of their present single shift earnings. That simply cannot happen.
The President of the Board of Trade paid a proper compliment to the work which has been done in the preparation of the Orders. For my part, I should like, through the right hon. Gentleman and his Parliamentary Secretary, to compliment the very competent technical personnel who have produced these very complicated Schemes. Within the limits

and aims of the enabling Act, these Orders provide for Schemes which appear workable. They are, broadly speaking, fair as between section and section, as between stopped mills and running mills, and reasonably fair, also—this was a critical point—as between single unit mills and combines or groupings of mills. I add my thanks and compliments to those which the President of the Board of Trade paid for a difficult job accomplished with very great technical competence.
I say those words of appreciation to give some balance, I hope, to the doubts and criticisms which I have to offer. The Act and the Orders, in my opinion, will not achieve the Government's objective as declared in paragraph 48 of the White Paper, to make
a compact, up-to-date and efficient cotton industry
First, if the minima only are taken, then too little additional confidence will be created to stimulate adequately the re-equipment which is vital. The minima figures prescribed in the Orders will still leave 25 per cent. excess capacity in spinning, about 11 per cent. excess capacity in weaving, and 40 per cent. excess capacity in doubling. In his opening speech, the right hon. Gentleman said that closer examination had revealed that the employers 'organisations' estimates of excess capacity were very wide of the mark. Candidly, I am surprised to hear that. From my experience, and according to my limited knowledge, I had thought that the figures given in the White Paper were a very close estimate of the actual degree of excess capacity in these three sections of the industry. If only the minima figure are attained, even in five years we shall still have an industry which is not compact, which is not up to date and which is not efficient as a whole.
On the other hand, if the maxima figures are attained, even in five years we available in the Treasury's £30 million for adequate re-equipment to take place. My arithmetic is not very good, but my estimate of the cost to the Treasury of scrapping 6 million mule equivalent spindles, 400,000 doubling spindles and 45,000 looms is about £8 million. I base my figures on 16s. 4d. per mule equivalent spindle, including carding engine, 12s. 6d. per doubling spindle and £60 in respect of each loom.

Mr. Holt: The hon. Member has left out the trade's contribution of one-third.

Mr. Thornton: I do not think that that arises. I was talking about the cost to the Treasury. The figures which I have quoted are the amounts which will be paid out of Treasury funds.

Mr. Holt: No.

Mr. Thornton: Then my figure of £8 million is subject to correction and the cost to the Treasury would then be about £5 million. The cost to the Treasury with scrapping to the maxima will be about £10 million. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman agrees with that estimate.

Sir D. Eccles: Considerably less.

Mr. Thornton: Considerably less than £10 million on the basis of the maxima prescribed in the Orders? I suggest, then, that the figure at which we shall eventually arrive will be a cost to the Treasury of somewhere between the two, about £6 million or £8 million.
If that be so, if full advantage is taken of re-equipment, that will enable the amount of re-equipment to be done which was envisaged in the White Paper. That brings me to my point, that in the main firms will wait two or two and a half years before they engage in re-equipment to any considerable extent. They will wait to see what happens when the Hong Kong undertaking runs out in early 1962. That uncertainty is more responsible than excess capacity for lack of confidence in the future.
I now come to the statutory levies. Without doubt, these will be a burden unless they are spread over a substantial number of years. The Orders prescribe the maximum period of the levy as ten years. Since my arithmetic is not too good, I am a little hesitant about submitting other figures, but the levy for redundant machinery and for operatives will be an addition to production costs. Since 1958 was an abnormally bad year, I will take 1957 production figures, and on that basis the average added cost per yard will be ·7d. with the minimum amount of scrapping and 1·36d. per yard if the maximum figures are reached.
Therefore, I suggest that it would be wise, in the long-term interests of the

industry, to spread these levies over at least five years, and probably seven or eight years. I see a danger of an even greater unbalance appearing in the industry than exists at present. For example, if the maximum figure is reached in weaving and only the minimum in spinning, or if, on the other hand, the weaving section fails to reach the minimum figures and the spinning section exceeds them, the whole purpose of the Orders will be frustrated, and to a very great extent the money will go down the drain. Even at this late hour I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it would not be better to abandon the whole business if either of the two main sections—the spinning and weaving sections—failed to meet the minimum figures for scrapping. If one of the main sections were left out of the Schemes, or did not fit into them, the resulting confusion would be worse than the chaos we have had in recent years.
I now come to one small advantage for the combines or groupings. I said earlier that the Schemes appeared to be fair as between section and section, and as between running mills and stopped mills and unit firms and groupings, but as I understand Article 13 (1) of the Cotton Spinning Reorganisation Scheme, combines or groupings could stop a running mill or mills and receive compensation payments at the standard rate. If they have also an empty mill or a mill with vacant space they could re-equip without the claw-back of 75 per cent. Is this really the position? If, on the other hand, a single unit mill scraps and re-equips, there is this clawback of 75 per cent. of the compensatory payments made for scrapping machinery according to the prescribed formula.
If confidence is to be restored and success achieved there must be, first, some firm guarantee in regard to the over-riding problem of the last few years, namely, the problem of duty-free Asian Commonwealth imports. I do not propose to discuss that question tonight, because I should be ruled out of order.
Secondly, there is a need for greater vertical integration of the industry, with merchanting far more firmly associated with the producing section. This


problem of effective marketing is urgent and of prime importance.
As will have been noted, I have my doubts and misgivings, but in the interests of the people with whom I have worked all my life I hope that the Schemes will be more successful than I expect.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Holt: Not only have I some doubts about these Schemes, but I most strongly protest at the position in which the House has been put. Even now we have not the completed schemes before us. From the beginning we have had to discuss, almost in vacuo, a new and complicated idea for dealing with an industry which is in difficulties, and all those hon. Members who have had any detailed contact with the industry have felt some sympathy for any kind of scheme which would help it out of its difficulties.
We are voting about £30 million to the industry, but we have not a clue about how it is to be used. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) talked about giving money to private industry for not doing something, but he did not make the story as bad as it is. We are giving money to private industry for having done something which ought to have been done, for stopping about 6 million spindles. I should say that there was not the slightest chance of those spindles ever starting up again. They had been stopped because of bad trading conditions, the work people had gone and would not come back. But the Treasury proposes to pay about £3·6 million for spindles which would never have worked again in any case. That is the frightful thing which we are doing. Do not let us pretend that there are not some extremely objectionable features about this matter.
I said that we did not know the entire scheme because we do not know the amount of the levy which eventually will have to be paid by those firms which stay in the industry. If only 6 million spindles are scrapped the levy on the remainder may not be burdensome. But if we reach the target which the President of the Board of Trade seems to have in mind, although he has never given a figure, the levy on the remaining firms will be so much bigger.

Mr. Alan Green: In a way, what the hon. Gentleman is saying is perfectly true. But I am sure that he will bear in mind that if 6 million spindles are to be scrapped, which in his judgment is too few, and if the levy is to be paid, in his view and, I think, in the view of the trade, it must be paid out of the stopped spindles for which no compensation has been paid. This is something about which those in the trade must make up their minds. If too few spindles are scrapped, it follows that a number will remain idle and from those idle spindles the levy must be paid when the others are scrapped.

Mr. Holt: That creates another complication—

Mr. Rhodes: Yes, it does.

Mr. Holt: These marginal spindles, if I may use that term, may not be stopped at the moment.

Mr. Green: There are 8 million.

Mr. Holt: This is a point I was coming to later in my speech, but I will deal with it now. If this levy is imposed over a period of up to 10 years, how is it to be paid? Firms may go out of business and may never pay the levy.

Mr. Rhodes: The Government will pay it.

Mr. Holt: Some firms may pay the levy for two or three years and then get into difficulties. They may not have to close down but they will be down to see the President of the Board of Trade as fast as the Mancunian can bring them. They will say, "This Scheme was all very well a few years ago, but trade is terrible now and it is nonsense to go on paying this levy for something which was done for the trade three or four years ago. A sensible President of the Board of Trade will certainly scrap this levy now and write it off as a bad debt—just as the railways want their millions written off as a bad debt. Who will gainsay them?
There are too many things not tied up about these Schemes and too many things that even the President of the Board of Trade does not yet know about. Yet we are being asked to pass these Orders which implement the right


to give this trade some £30 million. I do not wonder that the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) had some difficulty in deciding what this might cost the Treasury. There are no figures.
As I understand the hon. Member's figures, he gave the total cost of paying for the scrapping of the minimum requirements. But I understand that one-third of the cost would be paid by the trade, so that the Treasury would only pay two-thirds of his figure. If we only get this minimum requirement the cost to the Treasury will be something of the order of £5 million to £6 million. But, of course, in these Orders we are supposed to be catering for giving away £30 million. So where is the rest going? The Orders which we have not yet had are comparatively small in cost. The rest, some £20 million, is supposed to go on re-equipment.
I must again draw attention to the fact that under the Cripps arrangement the Government paid out in the end £28 million at a time when the trade was booming and when a lot of people thought it had a bright future. In view of all that has gone on, do the Government really think that the cotton industry, reduced in size in the next few years, is going to undertake re-equipment on the scale which will use Government money to the extent of £30 million? This is another side of the Scheme which shows a lack of realism.
What happens if mills take a rather more favourable view of the compensation offered in Part 2 of these Orders than some of us have thought previously? My previous view, based on what information I had about the ideas that were current, was that fewer mills would take advantage of the Scheme than I now believe to be the case, in view of the premium on the rate and in view of the fact that no firms who are going out are going to be asked for any compensation. I had taken it that a firm at present producing, which decided to scrap would, at least, have to pay something towards the compensation of its own workpeople. I gather that is not now the case. The levies for scrapping and for compensation of workpeople will be paid only by those mills which stay in business, so that the

terms offered to those who scrap are a good deal more favourable, particularly for firms which go out completely.
I know of a number of firms which are going to have to do some hard thinking. I can give the example of a unit of two mills whose premises are some of the most modern in the industry, which means they were built in the early '20s; they are large mills with probably 125,000 spindles in each, and they have been running quite well, even keeping their heads above water in the last year. They could get, if they went out under this Scheme, £250,000, including the actual scrap value of their machinery. If they stay, gradually reorganise and get on to shifts, they might be faced with an expenditure of something like £400,000. They could take their £250,000 from the Government and the trade plus the assets they have in the business now and invest in almost anything. On balance, they could probably do better than if they spent a great deal of money and stayed in. These people have to do some very hard thinking and it may be that not all of them will come to the same conclusions, but some will close down.
If after he has got 6 million spindles in the spinning industry the President of the Board of Trade finds quite a number of mills like that are closing—and quite a number in one locality such as East Lancashire, Bolton or the Leigh area are closing—is he going to have any regard to this, because it is going to produce for him in his other capacities as President of the Board of Trade some rather difficult problems. I do not see why he should have those problems before him. I very much doubt whether the closing of a mill such as I have described is in anybody's interest, except possibly the shareholders'. This is another example of the blind way in which this thing is going.
It is up to the President of the Board of Trade to give the House some idea of how his mind is working if the response to this Scheme is rather greater than many of us expected, particularly if it is concentrated in certain localities.

11.17 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: I want to ask the President of the Board of Trade a few brief questions because, as several hon. Members have said, we


are providing for the expenditure of a great deal of public money and the exact pattern in which it is to be done is still not clear to some of us. If the answers to my questions are contained in the Orders, I can only believe that we have not found them because we have not had a great deal of time in which to study them. As the right hon. Gentleman will agree, they are complicated.
First, I have mainly in mind the Order dealing with the spinning section of the industry, but it is a basic part of all these Orders that spindles, looms or whatever it may be have to be scrapped in order that compensation should be paid. That runs throughout all these Schemes. I am not asking if it is probable or economically advisable, but is it legally possible under a Scheme for a firm to scrap a certain number of spindles during the period provided by the Scheme, to take its compensation and then to install new spindles? I know that it is provided under Section 13 that, if this is done by the re-equipment grant under the Scheme, the Treasury claws back 75 per cent., but it might be done not under a re-equipment grant. Is it possible and legitimate for a firm to do that?
Secondly, it is provided under the standard rate part of the Schemes that as a condition a participant has to close down the mill in question. The phrase is:
A participant who closes down his mill
Is it possible for someone, having closed down the mill for the relevant period, to receive the compensation and, at a later period, after the deal is over, to reopen the mill and to use it for spinning or weaving cotton, or whatever was happening before? I am not saying that this is likely to happen, but we should know whether it is legally possible after public money has been spent.
Thirdly, if a firm is to qualify for the appropriate rate of compensation, there is the further condition that it has to cease to carry on business. The President of the Board of Trade, when he quoted that, slightly implied that the firm had to cease to carry on business altogether. Under the Scheme, I think it has to cease to carry on the business of cotton spinning or weaving. If it were a firm like the Lancashire Cotton Corporation, which does all sorts of other things. it would not have to cease doing

them. But let us suppose that it has to cease carrying on the manufacture of cotton in that particular section. Can it do that, receive its compensation, and then, supposing it were a firm doing other things than manufacturing cotton, resume the manufacture of cotton again afterwards? I am not asking whether these things are likely to happen, but whether it is possible to do that under the legal framework.
The other question is about the effect of all this on the value of the shares of some of these companies which draw compensation from the Treasury. We have always had some doubts whether it was right to hand out all this public money as a free gift, in effect, to shareholders, without further conditions. I noticed some calculations made by the city editor of the Evening Standard last Friday, about the effect of these arrangements on the shares of some companies, and which, if correct, are somewhat disquieting in their indication of what is being done. I should like to ask whether these can be correct. The calculations take several companies, assume that they close down a number of mills, and try to calculate the resultant effect on the value of the shares if the companies were to go out of business, though they might not necessarily do so.
The first company was Horrockses and Crewsdon, in which, according to this calculation, if it were to take the compensation and go out of business, the shares would have a break-up value of 75s. a share, whereas the present market value is only 38s. 7½d. If that were correct it would appear to offer the opportunity of large capital profits to the present shareholders, or to anyone else who bought the shares when the Scheme was originally introduced. A similar calculation is made for Joshua Hoyle, whose shares would break up at 6s. 3d. a share, whereas they are now worth 3s. l½d.

Mr. Holt: To draw the picture properly, the right hon. Gentleman should add that the break-up value of Joshua Hoyles is now something like 5s" without any redundancy scheme.

Mr. Jay: I was about to say that it would not be unprecedented for the break-up value of companies to be superior to the market value of their shares. Nevertheless, as we have seen


recently, this situation is likely to invite purchasers and thereby to produce large capital profits for existing shareholders.
But is it the case that these Schemes are so framed that if the companies took the maximum compensation and went out of business further considerable capital profits would be earned by the shareholders? If so, I think it throws a further and rather odd light on the precise figures we now have before us. I am asking whether the President thinks that those calculations are correct, or anything like correct.

11.25 p.m.

Sir D. Eccles: With the leave of the House I should like to reply, very briefly, to the debate.
The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) asked about the finishing schemes. I cannot give him the exact information, but at present it looks as though there will be a Scheme for printing, bleaching, piece dyeing and yarn dyeing, but it is still rather uncertain precisely what form of schemes the finishers want to submit. Conversations about this will be carried on over the next few months. He also asked what happened if the basic minimum was reached only in the case of one section. The scheme for that section would have to come into effect, because that is the nature of the Order, but I believe that that is a very unlikely result, and everything will be done to see that it does not happen. As the Orders are drafted, they are independent one of the other.
The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) made two good suggestions, both of which we are putting into practice. I am glad that he talked about publicity being desirable in order that the Scheme may be thoroughly understood by all firms. A description of the Scheme in as plain language as it can be written has been sent to every registered firm by the Cotton Board, but I think that we have to go on with the job of explaining what these Schemes can do, and I also agree with him that easy access to the Cotton Board and its advisers who are working on these Schemes is desirable. He said—and we were very grateful to him for saying it—that this is the only opportunity before the cotton industry for the time being

and is likely to be the only opportunity for some time, and therefore we all hope that it will be seized.
The hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) paid a compliment to the Cotton Board Committee for which we were grateful. I agree that it is necessary to get more than the minimum target, but, as I tried to explain in my earlier speech, this is the method by which we think that we are most likely to get more than the minimum figure. He is right that the levy on the industry would best be spread over a number of years.
I cannot off-hand answer the question of what happens if a combine has an empty mill. It may be that such exist. If so and they desire to re-equip, we shall have to consider their application for a re-equipment grant when it is received. The re-equipment grants will be subject to the scrutiny of the Cotton Board and the Board of Trade before they are made. We shall have to think about that case.
The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) asked a number of questions, and I think the answer is the same in each case. If a firm which qualifies for either the standard rate or the premium rate scraps and receives compensation, and afterwards starts up again, it is at liberty to start up again but without the re-equipment grant.
In such a case we would have nothing to say, but if the firm applies for a re-equipment grant it will have to repay 75 per cent. of the compensation money. That would be, of course, in the case of the firm that was still in being. The machinery of the firm that has gone right out of business—and obtained the premium rate for the machinery—will have been scrapped, and if the firm is to come back into the cotton business it has to start right from the beginning, and whether or not, starting completely afresh, it would be eligible for a re-equipment grant is, again, something that we will have to take into consideration when framing the conditions for that grant—

Mr. F. Blackburn: But is there anything to prevent any organisation that is not at present a cotton manufacturer from opening up as a manufacturer of cotton


goods? Would not it vitiate the whole Scheme if anyone else could come in?

Sir D. Eccles: The question, of course, is completely out of order because it has nothing to do with these re-organisation Schemes, but I did say that we are now studying the conditions on which the re-equipment grants—which are not in this Order—will be given. I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the answer about the exact conditions tonight, because the Cotton Board and ourselves are still working things out. But I do not think that we can describe something as re-equipment if someone has never been in the business before.

Mr. Blackburn: I did not mean applying for re-equipment grant, but is there anything to prevent any other firm from starting in the cotton industry?

Sir D. Eccles: I hope not. I think that it would be a very good thing if, from time to time, as we have already seen happen since the war, people were to come into the textile industry—never having been in it before—and make an extremely good job—

Mr. Jay: Then the right hon. Gentleman agrees that it is perfectly possible for a firm which has either scrapped its machinery, or closed down the mill, or ceased business—or all three—and having taken the compensation—provided it does not seek the re-equipment grant—then to reverse any of the three processes? I do not say that it will, but it will be perfectly possible for it to do so?

Sir D. Eccles: Yes, but it will have lost all its machinery, because it cannot get the compensation unless all the machines are effectively scrapped. That having been done, it closes the transaction. If the firm has never gone out of business, and then starts replacing the machinery and applies for a grant, it will have to repay 75 per cent. of the compensation.
I hope that I have answered all the questions that I have been asked. I am very grateful for the general agreement in the House that this Scheme is worth trying and, in particular, for the way in which hon. Members have encouraged the industry not to pay too much attention to the extra trade that is going on this summer, but to think very seriously whether it is not right for them to take advantage of this offer. I believe that we shall be successful but, as I said on Second Reading, this is a voluntary Scheme and, therefore, nobody can give an assurance in advance as to whether the individualistic people who live in Lancashire will or will not take advantage of it; but I hope that they will.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Cotton Doubling Reorganisation Scheme (Confirmation) Order, 1959, a draft of which was laid before this House on 13th July, be approved.

Cotton Spinning Reorganisation Scheme (Confirmation) Order, 1959 [draft laid before the House, 16th July], approved.—[Sir D. Eccles.]

Cotton Weaving Reorganisation Scheme (Confirmation) Order, 1959 [draft laid before the House, 13th July], approved.—[Sir D. Eccles.]

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Legh.]

Committee Tomorrow.

WAGES COUNCILS BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Legh.]

Committee Tomorrow.

INDUSTRY AND EMPLOYMENT, FALKIRK AND GRANGEMOUTH

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Legh.]

11.35 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: I am glad to find that this debate is taking place a little earlier in the evening than one might have expected. I will try to compress what I have to say into fifteen minutes, although when I started out I am afraid that my speech ran to a great deal longer than that in the form of notes.
I want to speak about the industrial situation in Falkirk and Grangemouth. For Ministry of Labour purposes, the area actually includes Bonnybridge and adjoining parts, but it is Grangemouth and Falkirk about which I am specially concerned. Grangemouth, of course, is prospering, but there are two things that I want to say about it before going on to speak of Falkirk.
First of all, in Grangemouth we have a small shipbuilding yard which, like other small shipbuilding yards, has recently been experiencing difficulties. I do not want to over-stress this problem because although recently a number of men have been laid off from the yard they have for the most part been employed elsewhere in Grangemouth. Therefore, I would not like to make a song and dance about something which has not so far become a serious matter.
Of course, the shipbuilding yard in Grangemouth is in the position of a great many other small shipbuilding yards in the country. It has a big question mark hanging over its future. It is a good yard. It has an enterprising management and it has orders from all over the world. It builds ships for countries across the Atlantic and in the area of the Pacific. Its craftsmen have a reputation throughout the shipbuilding industry of this country. It will be a tremendous pity if anything serious happens to this yard.
I want the Government to keep their eye on the situation and to do what they can to help. I should like, for instance, to know whether there is any possibility at all of Admiralty orders for repairs, for example, going to this yard.
The second question in regard to Grangemouth is perhaps more potential than actual. What is to be Grangemouth's part in whatever British-Russian trade may develop in the near future? Other Scottish ports will, I hope, together with Grangemouth take part in whatever such trade develops.
The point I want to make is simply that Grangemouth is a well-equipped port and can handle a considerable volume of overseas trade, and indeed does. I should like the Minister to make sure that Grangemouth is given full consideration in whatever arrangements the Government take part in about British-Russian trade in the near future.
Falkirk is uppermost in my mind. It depends on the light castings industry. In the last six years the labour force in that industry has been shrinking and foundries have been closing down. This situation is not confined to Falkirk. It is the same all over the country. The number of men employed in iron foundries in the country is the lowest since 1945. It has dropped from about 147,000 at its peak in 1952 to 116,000 at the present time. I am told that in the six months ending in March of this year 70 iron foundries closed and only two new ones opened. Therefore, Falkirk is not in a peculiar position as far as that industry is concerned.
I think that the problems of the industry call for rather more attention from the Government than they have been receiving. In Falkirk there has been continual unemployment and short-time working ever since 1952, and this has tended to follow a seasonal pattern. In the earlier part of the year the industry has been slack, and after the trades holidays, which are due shortly, the industry has tended to pick up again. But for a long time unemployment figures in Falkirk have run, at various parts of the year, around the 4 per cent. mark. For the area as a whole—Falkirk, Grangemouth and Bonnybridge—the figures have been just on the verge of the official critical figure.
When one has raised that sort of question, the answer in the past has always been, "Of course, you have got unemployment in Falkirk. The local industry is slacking off, but next door you have got the Grangemouth industries and surely they can absorb the people


rendered redundant in Falkirk." That is true. If the Grangemouth industries had not been there, and if British Aluminium, a comparatively new industry, had not come into existence in Falkirk itself, the situation in Falkirk would have been tragic.
There is no doubt that the Grangemouth industries, British Aluminium and now Alexander's the coach building firm, take up the redundancy of the light castings firms. That process is not at an end. British Hydrocarbon Chemicals at Grangemouth is to expand and I have heard a high figure quoted. The expansion may run to 1,000 additional workers. But in the Ministry of Labour area of Falkirk, Grangemouth and Bonnybridge, the unemployment figure at the moment is over 2,000. in Falkirk itself the unemployment figure is about 1,100. It was about the same this time last year. There are rather over 500 unemployed men, and one has to add to that another 500 or 600 women. That is the answer to what is said about Grangemouth taking up the slack.
There is always and always has been a lag between the redundancies in Falkirk and the employment offered by Grangemouth and new industries locally. The question is what should be done to remove that lag and to make sure that everyone is brought into employment. The light castings industry has been doing a great deal to explore new possibilities in recent years. There are new types of work being done and there are new possible avenues for selling their products. One of the most recent, for example, is through the workings of the Clean Air Act giving rise to the necessity for smokeless appliances, of which I understand the majority are likely to be in cast iron, and of which there are normally two to a house. That is a useful new market for the industry, and the industry is not neglecting this. Nor is it neglecting other lines of production.
But even allowing for the fact that there is a good deal of life in the industry, there are a number of specific things which should be done. First, there is the, problem of selling what the industry makes. As I understand it, the industry's sales methods have improved in recent years, but these ought to be reinforced by some sort of preference on the part

of some of its buyers. If only Scottish local authorities would give some sort of preference to goods produced not just in Scotland but in any area in Scotland suffering from unemployment, if they could give such preference to housing scheme products, that would make a great deal of difference to Falkirk. The policies of Glasgow, which is by far the biggest buyer of these things, could make a considerable difference to Falkirk industry.
There is a further point which, again, concerns Glasgow. When the first Clyde Tunnel was mooted and it was being put out to contract, a Falkirk company, the Carron Company, tendered for the cast iron work, but its tender was simply not considered, although it was the lowest. If a second tunnel is to be built, and I understand that this is now being mooted, the Government ought to make absolutely sure that that sort of thing does not occur again. The Carron Company ought to receive fair and equal treatment. It is not simply a matter of some other company from over the Border; it is a matter of the other company being in an area in the United Kingdom where employment is high competing with a company from Falkirk where employment is not nearly high enough and where, indeed, there is a good deal of unemployment.
The Government have not been very ready to encourage new industry to come to Falkirk. A few weeks ago, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade gave a very discouraging reply on this subject. He said:
My right hon. Friend "—
that is, the President of the Board of Trade—
is not prepared to steer industry there "—
that is, to Falkirk—
when the need in other parts of Scotland is so much greater."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1959; Vol. 599, c. 36.]
That was a very objectionable reply.
There are in this area now 2,000 unemployed. If there is an industrial project capable of employing 100, 200 or 500 people, it cannot do more in another area with 10,000 unemployed than it can do in Falkirk. It can employ only the same number of people, wherever it is established, and it will do exactly the same amount of good in providing employment. The hon. Gentleman ought


to dissociate himself and his Department from that statement. Further, I hope that Falkirk will benefit to some extent from the ancillary industries which will follow the establishment of the strip mill.
I have a specific point to put to the Minister about the raw materials produced locally in Falkirk and Grangemouth. In Grangemouth, the new chemical industry based on the oil refinery produces the raw material for plastics, synthetic rubber, and that sort of thing. There is a material called Styrene—I am afraid it remains only a name to me, for I am a layman in matters chemical—which, I gather, is a very important industrial raw material. In addition, British Aluminium in Falkirk produces at its rolling mills sheet aluminium, which is the raw material for aluminium products. Most of these raw materials go from Grangemouth and Falkirk to places in the South. The raw material for synthetic rubber produced in Grangemouth is being sent to Southampton. Why should not these raw materials, and others, which are produced locally be processed in Falkirk?
Does the Minister consider that the rule-of-thumb criterion for the distribution of industry policy, that is, the existence of a high and persistent rate of unemployment, the figure at present used being 4 per cent., is a really completely satisfactory basis? Would it not be better now and in the long run to say that we have here raw materials produced in a particular area, and we have also unused resources in the form of human beings and industrial sites and, perhaps, buildings near at hand, and why should not the one be married to the other?
Further, I put to him the point which was recently made by Lord Polswarth when he stressed that although the steel strip mill was not going to Grangemouth, the claims of the Forth Valley for considerable industrial expansion still held good. I hope that he Government still feel that the claims of the Forth Valley, and this corner of it in particular, are strong, and that meeting them would strengthen the economy of Scotland and of the United Kingdom as a whole.
The outlook for Falkirk in the long term I believe to be good. Its com-

merce is very lively. The iron founding industry is exploring some new avenues. The likelihood is that the industrial world in general will agree with Lord Polswarth that the Forth Valley could be built up. It has a very attractive site geographically, and Falkirk is at the nub of the area. I think that the long-term prospects for Falkirk are bright, but the short-term problems are difficult and the Government have given too little attention to these problems.
After all, this year and last year there were about 1,100 unemployed at this time of the summer and yet we have simply been told that the Government are not to steer industry to the area. That is the problem to which I hope the hon. Gentleman will apply his mind.

11.51 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): It is a pleasure to have to answer an Adjournment debate which is not one long dirge. The hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) has shown that he is by no means without optimism in this matter, at any rate for the longer term. Tonight he has raised the question of industry and employment in his constituency with special reference to one part of it, the Burgh of Falkirk.
The hon. Member started by referring briefly to Grangemouth and to the prospects of the shipbuilding yard there. He said that there was a big question mark hanging over its future and he implied, quite rightly, that there was a big question mark hanging over the future of shipbuilding as a whole.
He may be aware that an order for one ship has come to Grangemouth Dockyard recently. Work is likely to start in August and should give employment to all departments of the Grangemouth Dockyard until August, 1960. The dockyard is at present engaged in fitting out a 2,130-ton vessel which was launched last February.
Although the dockyard has had to lay off many employees—in that, I am sorry to say, it is in line with dockyards elsewhere—the position is at any rate no worse and in some respects better than that in some of the other dockyards in the country.
The hon. Member asked about British-Russian trade. The question


of how the trade to take place between Russia and this country will be arranged will be settled on normal commercial lines. I should not myself have thought that it was a question into which the Government need go to any great extent. Indeed, the fact that a new liner service was inaugurated just after the present arrangements with Russia were published has given the impression that that was as a result of the arrangements. In fact, the arrangements for this new service were completed before the recent trade talks between the Governments of the United Kingdom and the U.S.S.R.
The use of any particular harbour will undoubtedly be dictated by normal commercial considerations and the Government would not normally intervene in the matter. On the other hand, my right hon. Friend is sure that the British Transport Commission, which owns the Port of Grangemouth, will do what it can to ensure its maximum possible use.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: The Ports of London and Hull have been specifically mentioned by the Government in connection with this trade, and it is because of that Government interest in those ports that I simply asked that Grangemouth should not be overlooked in whatever arrangements were made.

Mr. N. Macpherson: The point I was trying to make is that the reason why those ports have been mentioned is that this service involving London and Hull—which was not arranged by the Government—had been set up before the trade talks. It was not a Government arrangement, and the question of the way in which any trade that develops is carried on, and the ports from which it is carried on, will be determined by normal commercial considerations.
Apart from that, I should have thought that Grangemouth was very well situated to conduct trade with Russia. The east coast ports of Scotland have been traditionally associated with Baltic trade. We have been sorry to see that trade diminish and dwindle over the years, and I should be very glad to see it developing again. I hope that that may be one of the effects of the recovery of British-Russian trade.
From the point of view of employment, as the hon. Member said, not only

Falkirk and Grangemouth but Bonny-bridge, Denny, Polmont, Larbert and Stenhousemuir form part of one employment area, and are treated as one area for the purpose of Ministry of Labour statistics of unemployment. It represents one travel-to-work area, with three separate offices of the Ministry of Labour. As the hon. Member indicated, the area contains a remarkable mixture of the old and the new. That, in itself, is a great strength. Falkirk has the oldest surviving iron industry in the United Kingdom—it is 200 years old this year-side by side with the new aluminium rolling industry to which the hon. Member referred.
The area is showing considerable adaptability and capacity to adjust itself to a changing world. If the light castings industry or the shipbuilding industry declines there are other industries, such as the petroleum refinery industry, which are expanding. But the unemployment rate remains higher than the national average—3·9 per cent. on 10th June and 3·6 per cent. over the last twelve months—although that is lower than the average for Scotland. The hon. Member, representing Falkirk and Grangemouth as he does, has every right to explore means of reducing it.
Unemployment is relatively heavier among women than men in this area. This phenomenon is by no means peculiar to Falkirk; it affects most of the mining areas, and it shows that there is scope for enterprising industrialists to found consumer industries based mainly on female labour in the district, such as the industries to which the hon. Member referred—industries associated with synthetic rubber or plastics. The hon. Member suggested that it was up to the Government to steer industry to Falkirk, and he criticised my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade for having said that the President of the Board of Trade is not prepared to steer industry there. The reason my hon. Friend gave was that the need in other parts of Scotland is so much greater. He pointed out that any industrialist who wishes to set up or expand in Falkirk is at liberty to do so. He will get his industrial development certificate.
I would ask the hon. Member to bear in mind two things that are frequently


forgotten. First, most industrialists know where they want to go. Their decisions are based on commercial considerations including the availability of supplies of suitable labour in all ranks and, as the hon. Member said, the availability of materials. They do not have to ask the Government for their views; all they have to ask for is an industrial development certificate, and they will get it for Falkirk whereas they would not get it for London or Birmingham.
Secondly, the number of industrialists who do not know where to go, or mind where they go, is always small, and in the last year or so, owing to the recession, it has been smaller. There are towns like Greenock and parts of Lanarkshire with twice the unemployment of Falkirk, and the Government are obliged to have regard first to the areas of high unemployment.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned some particular steps which might be taken, for example that preference be given to Scottish products by local authorities. He gave two instances. He mentioned the Carron Company's tender for the supply of cast iron linings for the first Clyde tunnel, which was not accepted by the contractors. The reason was that, apart from the fact that the company could not quote for all the items required, it had not done similar work before and would have had to reorganise production considerably to do such work. There was a risk of teething troubles and delays which the main contractors would not accept. They were under a time penalty and responsible for the entire job, and so they preferred to accept the tender of an English company which had done a great deal of this sort of work before.
It would be quite contrary to established procedure for a local authority to instruct the contractor, let alone for the Secretary of State to instruct the local authority. Indeed it would be dangerous for an authority to do so, for if anything went wrong the main contractor could repudiate responsibility. So when the tenders for the second Clyde tunnel come to be settled it will be for the Carron Company, if it tenders, to convince the main contractors that it can supply goods of comparable quality at the right time and do the job entirely as

well as any other contractor. That is part of the consideration which any main contractor must have in mind when he puts out his sub-contracts. One would hope that the contracts would come to Scotland, but these things must be dealt with on a proper commercial basis.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: But surely the main contractor is not the final authority. The main contractor is responsible to the local authority for which he is contracting—in this case the Glasgow Corporation—and the Corporation has an interest in what the contractor does. It seems to me perfectly possible to insist that a Scottish firm should have at least equal tendering rights with an English firm.

Mr. N. Macpherson: It would be possible to insist, but the authority would have to take the consequences which I have already indicated.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the practice of housing authorities in Scotland which do not necessarily give preference to Scottish goods as such. Part 5 of the Scottish Housing Handbook, dealing with tenders and specifications for local authority housing, contains a general recommendation that:
due consideration should be given to the use of available local materials and to local methods of building.
That is by way of advice, and it is a matter for each housing authority to determine whether to support home industries even if it costs the ratepayers a little more, or to buy elsewhere. But I hardly think that the hon. Gentleman would wish the Secretary of State to introduce regulations, even if he had the power to do so, compelling local authorities to buy in Scotland, irrespective of cost, type, quality and so forth. It would not be to the economic benefit of Scotland in the long run if he did so. It is a matter which must be left to the judgment and discretion of Scottish local authorities. Other things being equal, I think they would buy Scottish.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to give the impression—he did not do so—that Falkirk is stagnant from the point of view of industrial development. I should like to mention one or two things which have happened in the past two years. I.D.C.s have been issued for four projects in Falkirk, with


a total area of 147,000 square feet. It is estimated that these project will provide 105 new jobs. New jobs will be provided not only in new factories. I understand that the British Aluminium pay-roll has been maintained. Alexanders, the coach builders, have recently obtained an order for 150 new vehicles from Scottish Omnibuses. A firm of caravan builders has been expanding its output and the firm of R. and A. Main has doubled its output of gas cookers in the past eighteen months and increased its manpower from 500 to 800. This is particularly significant because about 30 per cent. of the cookers which are turned out are sent to England, which shows

that a Scottish consumer goods industry can overcome the disadvantages of distance if its products are right. The production of gas cookers was originally closely related to the iron foundry industry, but now it is turning over to the pressed steel industry which is another point mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'cock on Tuesday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at five minutes past Twelve o'clock.